i 


; 


GOOD    ENGLISH; 


POPULAR  ERRORS  IN  LANGUAGE. 


BY 

EDWARD   S.    GOULD, 


SIXTH    EDITION. 


POLONIUS.   What  do  yon  read,  my  lord ! 
'HAMLET.    Words,  words,  words  I" 


NEW    YORK: 
W.    J.    WIDDLETON,    PUBLISHER. 

1875- 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  '867, 

BY    W.     J.     WIDDLETON, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  State?  for  the  Southern 
District  of  New  York. 


Cambridge :  Presswork  by  John  Wilson  and  SOD 


PREFACE. 

MANY  of  the  following  hints  on  philology  have 
already  appeared  in  print,  in  the  form  of  occasional 
contributions,  through  a  series  of  years,  to  news- 
papers and  periodical  publications,  —  chiefly  in  the 
New  York  Evening  Post.  They  are  now,  for  the 
first  time,  brought  together  in  a  volume. 

Several  books  on  philology,  a  part  of  them  of 
English  authorship,  have,  in  the  interim,  been 
published  in  the  United  States ;  and  some  of  them 
have  occupied  portions  of  the  same  ground  as  is 
here  reviewed.  But  the  author  of  this  book  has 
borrowed  nothing  for  its  pages  from  any  source 
other  than  his  own  previous  essays,  except  in  those 
instances  where  he  mentions  the  fact  of  borrowing, 
or  quoting. 

He  makes  that  remark,  however,  to  disclaim 
direct  borrowing  from  other  books  of  philological 
criticism  ;  not  to  claim  originality,  properly  so 
called,  for  anything  in  his  own  book :  for,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  philological  criticism  is  noth- 

2017248 


iv  PREFACE. 

ing  more  than  a  re-assertion  of  principles,  which 
are  much  older  than  is  any  one  who  now  writes 
or  reads  them.  If  there  is  anything  strictly  "  origi- 
nal "  in  such  criticisms,  it  is  limited  to  a  mere 
selection  of  subjects,  —  the  subjects  themselves 
being  the  handiwork  of  the  people. 

On  that  point,  it  is  proper  to  say  that  the  author 
has  not  extended  his  comments  beyond  such  errors 
in  language  as  are  familiar  to  everybody,  —  such 
errors  as  are  strictly  popular,  —  and  which,  un- 
fortunately, are  to  be  found  in  the  pages  of  nearly 
all  of  those  who  are  termed  good  writers.  Pos- 
sible, or  imaginary,  errors  do  not  seem  to  be  worth 
the  trouble  of  exposure  or  refutation. 

In  the  winter  of  1865,  at  the  request  of  his 
friend,  the  Right  Reverend  WILLIAM  BACON  STE- 
VENS, Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  the  author  delivered 
three  lectures  on  Clerical  Elocution,  before  the  Di- 
vinity School  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
in  Philadelphia.  The  lectures  consisted  of  written 
precepts,  and  illustrative  readings  from  the  Bible 
and  Prayer  Book.  The  former  part  was  afterward 
published  in  the  Boston  Church  Monthly,  and  was 
thence  transferred  to  the  New  York  Christian 
Times.  But  copies  of  the  lectures,  beyond  what 
the  regularly  printed  numbers  of  those  periodicals 
could  supply,  have  often  been  called  for  ;  and  the 


PREFACE.  V 

author  has  therefore  added  them  to  his  philological 
comments.  They  are  reproduced  in  the  latter  part 
of  this  volume. 

There  is  this  further  reason  for  such  reproduc- 
tion :  Elocution  is,  practically,  quite  as  little  under- 
stood as  is  philology  ;  and,  as  both  subjects  are 
proper  to  be  learned  by  the  same  persons,  they 
may  appropriately  both  be  discussed  in  the  same 
volume,  —  which  is  one  of  its  publisher's  educa- 
tional series. 

KK\V  YORK,  February  5th,"l867. 


ADVERTISEMENT  TO  THE  FIFTH  EDITION, 


MY  publisher  says  to  me  that,  although  several 
books  on  philology  have  been  issued  since  this  vol- 
ume appeared  in  1867,  this,  nevertheless,  "  holds 
its  own,"  and  continues  to  be  called  for;  and, 
as  he  is  about  to  put  another  edition  to  press,  he 
inquires  whether  I  have  any  additions  or  alterations 
to  propose. 

As  to  additions :  •  many  things  of  more  or  less 
importance  were  omitted  in  the  original  compila- 
tion ;  but  additions  to  a  stereotyped  book  involve 
reconstruction  ;  and  that  is  more  of  an  under- 
taking than  seems  at  present  advisable. 

As  to  alterations :  several  slight  changes  were 
made  after  the  first  edition  was  published,  at  the 
suggestion  of  my  critics ;  and  they  were  specified 
in  the  course  of  my  controversy  with  Mr.  Moon, 
in  the  columns  of  The  Round  Table.  I  have  seen 
no  reason  for  any  further  changes. 

Some  typographical  errors  or  verbal  inadver- 
tencies have  been  discovered  in  each  of  the  pre- 
ceding editions  of  the  book,  all  of  which  have  at 
last  yielded  to  careful  proof-reading ;  and,  in  that 
respect,  I  believe  that  the  volume  now  needs  no 
corrections. 

E.  s.  G. 

NEW  YORK,  July,  1871. 


CONTENTS. 


FAGB 

INTRODUCTORY     1 

WHO  is  RESPONSIBLE 7 

SPURIOUS  WORDS 11 

MISUSED  WORDS 28 

A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH         .        .        .        .115 

WEBSTER'S  ORTHOGRAPHY 137 

CLERICAL  ELOCUTION 171 

INDEX  225 


GOOD    ENGLISH. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

THE  present  age  is  pre-eminently  an  age  of  pro- 
gress ;  and,  unfortunately,  the  progress  is  not  lim- 
ited to  "  things  of  good  report."  Error  follows 
fast  upon  the  footsteps  of  truth,  and  sometimes 
truth  is  left  behind  in  the  race. 

For  example,  the  English  language,  within  the 
last  quarter  of  a  century,  through  the  agency  of 
good  writers,  critics  and  lexicographers,  has  in 
many  respects  been  greatly  improved ;  but,  through 
the  heedlessness  of  those  who  should  be  its  con- 
servators, and  the  recklessness  of  those  who  have 
been,  and  are,  its  corrupters,  it  has  deteriorated  in 
other  respects  in  a  greater  proportion. 

The  responsibility  for  this  condition  of  things 
rests,  mainly,  on  those  who  are  called  "  our  good 
writers";  but,  to  some  extent,  it  rests  on  all  writ- 
ers, good  and  bad.  How  this  happens,  is  easily 
shown. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  innovations  on  our  vo- 
cabulary. These  are  of  two  kinds :  the  fabrica- 
tion of  new  words,  and  the  new  use  of  old  words. 


2  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

And  each  of  those  kinds  has  two  causes  or  sources, 
—  education  and  ignorance. 

An  educated  man  originates  a  word.  He  im- 
provises it  from  a  foreign  source,  or  by  sound  in- 
duction from  a  vernacular  root ;  and,  if  the  word 
satisfies  a  want,  it  is  adopted  by  good  writers,  and 
is  thenceforward  recognized  as  a  valuable  addition 
to  the  language. 

Again,  the  educated  man,  by  referring  to  the 
antecedents  of  a  familiar  word,  may  discover  a 
meaning  more  or  less  different  from  its  previously 
accepted  signification ;  and,  by  using  it  in  its  new 
sense,  he,  again,  enriches  the  language. 

But  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  in  each  of  those 
cases,  the  burden  of  proof  in  support  of  his  inno- 
vation, is  on  him.  He  must  show  that  the  word  is 
properly  formed,  and  is  needed. 

On  the  other  hand,  an  ignorant  man  who  catches 
a  word  by  its  sound,  without  knowing  its  spelling 
or  its  signification,  —  and  who,  therefore,  usually 
mistakes  both, — will  reproduce  the  word  in  a  wrong 
shape  or  with  a  wrong  meaning. 

Then,  as  the  tendency  of  things  corrupt  is  to  rise 
in  a  flowing  stream,  a  partially  educated  man  en- 
counters this  philological  novelty  in  the  popular  cur- 
rent, and  adopts  it  as  a  novelty  and  a  convenience  ; 
but  without  actually  knowing  anything  more  about 
it  than  his  predecessor  did :  as  your  poor  judge  of 
currency  takes  whatever  is  offered  —  the  genuine 
and  the  spurious  alike  —  and  pockets  and  passes 
them  indiscriminately. 


INTRODUCTORY.  3 

Next,  one  after  another,  of  better  educated  men, 
gives  the  novelty  his  sanction,  —  carelessly  receives 
and  circulates  the  "counterfeit  presentment,"  — 
until  finally  the  best  writers,  with  kindred  want  of 
reflection,  accept  it  from  the  last  holder,  and  mix 
it  up,  and  pay  it  out,  with  their  own  standard  cur- 
rency. And  thus  errors  increase  and  multiply. 

Here,  again,  the  fabricator  is  responsible  for  his 
innovation,  and  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  him. 
But,  when  the  case  comes  to  be  investigated,  it  is 
found  that,  although  the  fabricator  is  responsible  in 
the  sense  of  being  liable  to  respond,  he  is  by  no 
means  responsible  in  the  sense  of  being  able  to 
respond.  That  is  to  say,  he  cannot  justify  his  in- 
novation. His  word  was  spurious  originally,  and 
he  cannot  remove  its  taint,  nor  can  any  subsequent 
indorsement  purify  it. 

These  remarks  are  true,  in  particular,  of  spuri- 
ously fabricated  words;  but,  also,  they  are  true 
generally  as  to  every  other  corruption  of  language. 
The  errors  almost  universally  originate  with  igno- 
rant men ;  and  they  become  current  only  by  reason 
of  their  careless  adoption  by  men  of  education. 

As  a  general  rule,  the  usage  of  good  writers  is 
held  to  be  the  common  law  of  a  language.  Such 
usage,  therefore,  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  ac- 
curacy of  a  disputed  word  or  phrase.  But  the  final 
proof  of  accuracy  cannot  be  established  by  usage ; 
because  the  writer,  in  any  particular  instance,  may 
have  been  guilty  of  carelessness ;  he  may  have  used 
the  word  or  phrase  inadvertently ;  and  if  it  is  fairly 


4  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

presumable  that,  were  his  attention  called  to  the 
point,  he  would  admit  the  error,  his  example  can- 
not be  permitted  to  justify  what  sound  philological 
principles  must  condemn.  In  other  words,  the 
records  of  usage  are  liable  to  review,  and  therefore 
usage  is  not  the  court  of  last  resort. 

There  are,  however,  many  persons  who  dispute 
that  proposition :  persons  who  lack  sensibility  to 
the  evils  of  corruption  in  philology ;  who  think  the 
purposes  of  language  are  fulfilled,  when  a  speaker 
or  writer  has  made  himself  understood;  who  re- 
gard conservative  views  in  philology  as  obstinate 
adherence  to  the  past;  and  whose  principles,  if 
they  can  be  called  such,  would  go  to  the  extreme 
of  justifying  error  itself  by  erroneous  precedents. 
Such  reasoning  can  lead  to  nothing  but  literary 
anarchy. 

Yet  the  most  reckless  of  such  cavillers  must  make 
a  stand  somewhere.  For  example,  he  cannot  shut 
his  eyes  to  the  very  rudiments  of  grammar.  He 
dares  not  deny  that  syntax  is  subject  to  gram- 
matical rules.  He  must  admit  the  necessity  of 
concord  between  verbs  and  nouns  in  the  matters 
of  number  and  person,  as  well  as  the  submission 
of  cases  to  the  government  of  verbs  and  preposi- 
tions. And  so  forth.  And,  if  he  does  admit  such 
necessity,  he  must  further  admit  that  no  amount  of 
usage  can  supersede  it. 

But  nothing  is  easier  than  to  show,  by  multitu- 
dinous quotations,  that  the  pages  of  our  best  writers 
are  thickly  sprinkled  with  violations  of  the  plainest 


INTRODUCTORY.  5 

grammatical  rules.  A  careful  collector  of  such 
curiosities  of  literature  might  readily  fill  a  large 
volume  with  them.  For  the  purpose  of  present 
illustration,  some  occasional  specimens  must  suf- 
fice. 

GIBBON  says, 

"  The  use  of  fraud  and  perfidy,  of  cruelty  and 
injustice,  were  often  subservient  to  the  propagation 
of  the  faith." 

"  The  richness  of  her  arms  and  apparel  were  con- 
spicuous in  the  foremost  ranks." 

JUNIUS  says, 

"  Both  minister  and  magistrate  is  compelled  to 
choose  between  his  duty  and  his  reputation." 

"  Neither  Charles  nor  his  brother  were  qualified 
to  support  such  a  system." 

BLAIR  says, 

"  The  boldness,  freedom,  and  variety  of  our  blank 
verse  is  infinitely  more  favorable  than  rhyme  to  all 
kinds  of  sublime  poetry." 

MACAULAY  says, 

"  The  poetry  and  eloquence  of  the  Augustan  age 
was  assiduously  studied  in  Mercian  and  Northum- 
brian monasteries." 

ADDISON  says, 

"  I  .do  not  mean  that  I  think  any  one  to  blame  for 
taking  due  care  of  their  health." 

DEYDEN  says, 

"  Hence,  the  reason  is  perspicuous  why  no  French 
plays  when  translated  have,  or  ever  can,  succeed  on 
the  English  stage." 


6  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

LATHAM  says, 

"  The  following  facts  may  or  have  been  adduced 
as  reasons  on  the  other  side." 

JOHNSON  says, 

"  How  happy  is  it  that  neither  of  us  were  ill  in  the 
Hebrides." 

And  so  on,  through  the  whole  catalogue  of  the 
best  English  writers,  each  furnishing  scores  of 
instances. 

In  the  cases  here  cited,  the  mere  quotation  of 
the  passages  suffices ;  because  everybody  knows  the 
grammatical  rules  that  govern  in  the  premises,  and 
therefore  no  person  would  undertake  to  defend  the 
errors  on  the  ground  of  usage.  Besides,  no  person 
can  doubt  that,  had  the  attention  of  those  authors 
been  called  to  those  errors,  they  would  have  admit- 
ted them  to  be  errors,  as  a  matter  of  course. 

Upon  the  same  ground,  it  is  here  claimed  that 
the  various  philological  errors  of  the  present  day 
are  not  to  be  justified  by  the  fact  of  usage,  let  the 
literary  status  of  their  authors  be  what  it  may. 


WHO  IS  KESPOXSIBLE  ? 


WHO    IS    RESPONSIBLE? 

SPOKEN  language  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  more 
liable  to  corruption  than  written  language,  for  two 
reasons :  there  are  millions  who  can  speak,  but 
cannot  write  or  read,  and  their  ignorance  is  their 
excuse ;  and,  all  classes  of  educated  people  permit 
themselves  to  make  blunders  in  common  conver- 
sation, which  they  would  never  think  of  putting 
on  paper. 

The  former  class  can,  in  no  sense,  be  held  respon- 
sible for  their  philological  errors.  The  latter  class 
are  responsible  —  that  is,  are  liable  to  respond  —  in 
proportion  to  their  opportunities  for  avoiding  such 
errors.  And  their  liability  falls  on  them  in  the 
same  order  as  it  falls  on  parties  who  are  held  liable 
on  a  promissory  note,  —  the  last  indorser  is  held 
first.  And  that  order  is  obviously  just,  because 
the  last  indorser,  by  his  opportunity  of  knowing 
who  had,  before  him,  indorsed  the  error,  and  how 
it  was  put  in  circulation,  had  the  best  means  of 
avoiding  his  liability. 

Among  writers,  those  who  do  the  most  mischief 
are  the  original  fabricators  of  error,  to  wit:  the 
men  generally  who  write  for  the  newspapers.  Next 
to  them,  in  order,  are  the  authors  of  the  vapid, 
trashy  "  sensation  novels  "  of  the  day. 


GOOD   ENGLISH. 

The  individuals  belonging  to  tlie  former  of  those 
two  classes  follow  the  example  of  "  the  Athenians, 
who  spend  their  time  in  nothing  else  but  either  to 
tell,  or  to  hear,  some  new  word"  Or,  they  may 
more  properly  be  compared  to  "  the  enemy  who, 
while  men  slept,  came  and  sowed  tares  among  the 
wheat."  Dean  Alford,  however,  has  nearly  ex- 
hausted the  newspaper  branch  of  this  subject ;  and, 
as  the  topic  may  not  be  omitted  in  a  book  on  philo- 
logical errors ;  and  as,  moreover,  no  man  can  safe- 
ly attempt  to  improve,  or  to  offer  a  substitute  for 
the  Dean's  strictures,  the  alternative  seems  to  be 
to  copy  what  the  Dean  says  in  "A  Plea  for  the 
Queen's  English,"  page  244,  et  seq. 

"  This  is  mainly  owing  to  the  vitiated  and  pre- 
tentious style  which  passes  current  in  our  news- 
papers. The  writers  in  our  journals  seem  to  think 
that  a  fact  must  never  be  related  in  print  in  the 
same  terms  in  which  it  would  be  told  by  word  of 
mouth.  The  greatest  offenders  in  this  point  are 
the  country  journals,  and,  as  might  be  expected, 
just  in  proportion  to  their  want  of  real  ability. 
Next  to  them  comes  the  London  penny  press  ;  in- 
deed, it  is  hardly  a  whit  better;  and,  highest  in 
the  scale,  but  still  by  no  means  free  from  this  fault, 
the  London  regular  press,  —  its  articles  being  for 
the  most  part  written  by  men  of  education  and 
talent  in  the  various  political  circles.  The  main 
offence  of  the  newspapers,  the  head  and  front  of 
their  offending,  is,  the  insisting  on  calling  common 
things  by  uncommon  names;  changing  our  ordinary 


WHO   IS   RESPONSIBLE  ?  9 

short  Saxon  nouns  and  verbs  for  long  words  derived 
from  the  Latin.  And  when  it  is  remembered  that 
this  is  very  generally  done  by  men  for  the  most 
part  ignorant  of  the  derivation  and  strict  meaning 
of  the  words  they  use,  we  may  imagine  what  de- 
lightful confusion  is  thus  introduced  into  our  lan- 
guage. A  Latin  word  which  really  has  a  meaning 
of  its  own,  and  might  be  a  very  useful  one  if  con- 
fined to  that  meaning,  does  duty  for  some  word 
whose  significance  extends  far  wider  than  its  own 
meaning ;  and  thereby,  to  common  English  hearers, 
loses  its  own  proper  force,  besides  utterly  confusing 
their  notions  about  the  thing  which  its  new  use 
intended  to  represent. 

"  Our  journals  seem  indeed  determined  to  banish 
our  common  Saxon  words  altogether.  You  never 
read  in  them  of  a  man,  or  a  woman,  or  a  child.  A 
man  is  an  individual,  or  a  person,  or  a  party;  a 
woman  is  a  female,  or,  if  unmarried,  &  young  person, 
which  expression,  in  the  newspapers,  is  always  of 
the  feminine  gender ;  a  child  is  a  juvenile,  and 
children  en  masse  are  expressed  by  that  most  odi- 
ous term,  the  rising  generation 

"  The  newspaper  writers  never  allow  us  to  go 
anywhere,  we  always  proceed.  A  man  going  home 
is  set  down  as  an  individual  proceeding  to  his  resi- 
dence. 

"  We  never  eat,  but  always  partake,  even  though 
we  happen  to  eat  up  the  whole  of  the  thing 

mentioned We  never  hear  of  a  place;  it 

is  always  a  locality.  Nothing  is  ever  placed,  but 


10  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

located.  No  one  lives  in  rooms,  but  always  in  apart- 
ments. No  man  ever  shows  any  feeling,  but  always 
evinces  it." 

The  Dean  quotes  several  other  words,  and  com- 
ments appropriately  on  their  substitution  ;  as, 

Commence  for  Begin, 

Avocation  "  Vocation, 

Persuasion  "  Sect, 

Sustain  a  loss  "  Lose, 

Experience  a  sensation    "  Feel, 

Accord  "  Award, 

Allude  to  "  Mention, 

and  so  on.  In  short,  the  Dean's  comments  and 
specifications  show  that  the  fraternity  of  the  press 
in  England  sure  full-blooded  relations  of  their  Arneri 
can  cousins. 

Whether  reiterated  exposures  of  popular  philo- 
logical errors  will  lead  in  any  degree  toward  their 
correction,  remains  to  be  seen.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain,—  that,  unless  the  exposures  are  reiterated, 
and  in  some  way  "kept  before  the  people,"  the 
corrupters  of  the  language  will  carry  everything 
before  them. 


SPURIOUS  WORDS.  11 


SPURIOUS   WORDS. 

REFERENCE  was  made,  in  the  introductory  chap- 
ter, to  words  fabricated  by  ignorant  people,  and 
afterward  adopted  by  people  of  education.  There 
are  not  many  of  them,  speaking  comparatively  ; 
but  their  number  is  every  day  increasing,  and  if 
their  increase  cannot  be  checked,  they  will  soon  be 
"  like  the  stars,  for  multitude."  In  the  strict  sense 
of  the  term,  such  things  are  not  words  —  certainly 
not  English  words  —  at  all.  They  do  not  belong 
to  the  language.  They  have  been  foisted  into  it  by 
ignorant  or  assuming  persons  under  false  pretences, 
and  they  should  be  summarily  ejected. 

As  a  specimen  of  this  class,  take  first  the  verb  to 

JEOPARDIZE. 

To  jeopard  is  a  legitimate  English  verb,  as  old 
as  the  language.  Its  etymology  is,  probably,  Fr. 
jeu-parti.  It  means  to  put  in  danger,  to  expose  to 
loss  or  injury,  to  imperil,  to  hazard,  etc. 

But  some  aspiring  wight,  being  ambitious  of 
long  words,  or  apprehensive  of  the  incompleteness 
of  short  words,  happened  to  hear  it  imperfectly  ; 
and,  fancying  that  euphony  required  for  it  an  addi- 
tional syllable,  he  improved  it  into  jeopardize,  and 
set  it  afloat  with  the  grave  complacency  of  a  man 
who  thinks  he  has  done  a  good  thing.  He  might 


12  GOOD   ENGLISH. 

just  as  well  have  made  the  same  improvement  on 
hazard  Hazardize  is  as  legitimate  English  as 
"jeopardize  "  ;  and,  for  that  matter,  so  is  perilize, 
or  endangerize,  or  any  other  ize  that  anybody  may 
choose  to  fabricate  from  any  other  verb. 

CONTROVERSIALIST. 

This  is  another  instance  of  the  counterfeit  cur- 
rency. It  probably  was  first  issued  in  conversa- 
tion ;  thence  it  may  have  made  its  way  into  the 
newspapers  ;  thence  into  fashionable  novels  ;  and 
thence  —  and  here,  unfortunately,  conjecture  ends 
—  into  the  pages  of  MACAULAY,  whose  claim  to  the 
rank  of  a  "good  writer"  is  altogether  beyond 
question. 

If,  however,  such  a  man  as  MACAULAY  is  to  be 
impeached,  and  if  a  word  so  well  accredited  as 
controversialist  is  to  be  repudiated,  the  proceedings 
must  be  made  and  had  in  due  form. 

By  reverting  to  first  principles,  we  find  that  an 
act  precedes  a  fact.  A  verb  precedes  a  noun.  A 
man  exists,  and  thence  existence ;  he  speaks,  and- 
thence  speaker.  In  short,  whenever  a  verb  and  a 
noun  are  cognates,  the  verb  is  the  primitive  and 
the  noun  is  formed  from  it  with  some  reference  to 
analogous  construction.  We  have,  then,  in  the 
first  place,  the  verb  controvert. 

Controvert  is  derived  from  the  Latin  contra, 
against,  and  vertere,  to  turn.  And  it  may  be  well 
to  remark  here,  parenthetically,  on  one  of  the  ten 
thousand  inconsistencies  of  Noah  Webster. 


SPUEIOUS  WORDS.  13 

He  undertook  to  reform  English  orthography  ; 
and  one  of  his  rules  was,  very  properly,  that 
orthography  should  be  controlled  by  etymology : 
but,  practically,  he  added  the  unlucky  mental  res- 
ervation —  whenever  he  thought  such  control  expedi- 
ent. His  critics  have  shown  that  he  violated  the 
rule  almost  as  often  as  he  followed  it,  in  trouble- 
some cases.  The  inconsistency  is  this. 

Webster  gives  nearly  twenty  primitive  words, 
besides  all  their  derivatives,  commencing  with  tha 
Latin  contra,  as  contradict,  contravene,  etc.,  and  ho 
spells  them  all  with  the  a,  contra.  But  although 
the  root  of  "  controvert "  is  the  same  contra,  ho 
leaves  it  in  a  state  of  non-conformity  both  to  anal- 
ogy and  to  his  rule.  If  Webster  had  "  reformed  " 
this  word,  "controvert";  that  is,  if  he  had 
restored  it  to  what  one  would  think  must  have 
been  its  original  orthography,  —  contravert,  —  ho 
would,  for  once,  have  made  rather  a  happy  hit, 
and,  probably,  escaped  censure. 

But,  to  return  from  this  digression.     We  have 

Controvert,  the  verb. 
Controverter,  ^ 
Controvertist,  >  nouns. 
Controversy,  J 
Controversial,    j  adjectives> 
Controvertible,  ) 
Controversially, 
Controvertibly, 

But  where  or  whence  controversialist  f 


14  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

It  is  formed  by  adding  ist  to  the  adjective ;  and 
the  question  arises,  whether  a  noun  can  properly  be 
formed  from  an  adjective  by  the  addition  of  ist, 
when  such  formation  is  made  in  disregard  of  the 
primitive  verb  ? 

A  noun  may  be  so  formed  from  an  adjective, 
when  it  has  no  primitive  verb;  as,  for  example, 
sensual,  sensualist.  And  perhaps  that  distinction 
may  be  the  rule  in  the  premises.  At  any  rate, 
although  Paley  did  once  use  the  word,  Johnson 
ignores  it,  and  even  Webster,*  as  recently  as  1856, 
repudiates  it. 

The  philosophy  of  the  thing  would  seem  to  be, 
that  definitions  must,  to  some  extent,  control  deriv- 
atives, and  the  formation  of  a  noun  must  conform 
to  the  attribute  or  prerogative  of  its  antecedent 
verb. 

*  "  Webster  "  here,  and  in  some  other  instances,  is  used  conven- 
tionally. "  Webster's  Dictionary,"  since  its  publication  in  1 828,  has 
passed  through  a  series  of  revolutions  and  "  reconstructions,"  es- 
pecially in  the  matter  of  orthography,  and  those  processes  were 
continued  after  the  lexicographer's  death,  in  1843;  two  or  more 
altered  editions  having  been  published  since  that  event.  The  last 
edition  differs  from  all  of  its  predecessors  much  more  than  they 
differ  from  each  other.  For  instance,  the  etymologies  and  defini- 
tions are,  in  the  last  edition,  almost  entirely  remodelled  or  renewed  : 
a  proceeding  that  has  greatly  increased  the  value  of  the  work ;  but 
which  would  seem,  in  the  same  proportion,  to  have  repudiated  the 
precedent  labours  of  Webster  himself  and  to  have  detracted  from 
his  reputation  as  a  lexicographer.  Webster's  detestable  spelling  of 
a  hundred  words  —  more  or  less  —  is  retained ;  but  even  that  is  in 
many  cases  presented  alternatively  with  correct  orthography ;  so 
that,  on  the  whole,  the  present  title  of  the  Dictionary  is  a  matter 
of  courtesy  rather  than  a  matter  of  fact 


SPURIOUS  WORDS.  16 

For  example,  a  separatist  is  one  who  separates ; 
an  economist,  one  who  economizes :  but  a  controver- 
sialist is  not,  and  cannot  be,  one  who  controversial, 
because  there  is  no  such  act  and  no  such  verb. 
Hence,  the  word  seems  to  be  a  malformation ;  and, 
being  a  word  that  no  scholar  would  deliberately 
fabricate,  it  must  have  originated  in  ignorance  and 
have  been  accredited  through  inadvertence.  And 
as,  besides,  the  word  is  not  needed  (for  we  already 
have  the  true  word,  controvertist,  which  is  properly 
formed  and  expresses  the  meaning),  and  is  not  in 
such  common  use  as  to  create  a  necessity  for  a 
synonyme  to  avoid  repetition,  —  no  good  writer  can 
be  justified  in  using  it. 

LENIENCY. 

This  is  a  word  —  if,  as  previously  suggested,  it 
deserves  to  be  called  a  "word" — which  is  not 
needed  in  our  language  ;  —  which  is  not  justified 
by  the  precedents  of  our  language  ;  —  which  did  not 
originate  with  educated  men  ;  —  and  which  should 
not  receive  the  sanction  of  educated  men. 

The  thing  meant  to  be  expressed  by  the  word  is 
lenity,  and  lenity  is  English.  It  is  derived  from 
lenitas.  Beginning  with  Johnson,  we  have 

Lenity,  noun. 
Lenient,  adjective. 
Also, 

medical 


Lenitive,  }  n< 
Lenitive,  adjective. 


16  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

But,  when  we  come  to  Webster,  we  find, 
Lenience, 


_     .          ,  noun, 
Leniency, 

though,  indeed,  with  very  brief  notice.  He  gives 
no  authority.  He  says,  merely,  by  way  of  defini- 
tion, lenity,  clemency. 

"Worcester,  unfortunately,  goes  further  and  fares 
worse.     He  says, 

Lenience,  )  The  quality  of  being  len- 
Leniency,  J      ient,  etc.     Ed.  Eev. 

That  is,  no  etymology  given,  but  the  Edinburgh 
Review  cited.  The  Edinburgh  Review  is  undoubt- 
edly high  authority  ;  and,  as  Worcester  cites  it,  he 
must  have  found  the  word  —  that  is,  one  of  the 
words  —  somewhere  in  it.  What  Worcester  meant 
by  giving  two  such  philological  abortions,  when  sure- 
ly one  was  too  much,  the  reader  must  conjecture. 
And  it  is  worthy  of  a  passing  remark,  that,  while 
Webster  was  content  with  giving  but  one  —  leniency 
— an  the  edition  of  1856,  he,  in  order  not  to  be  be- 
hind his  American  rival,  copied  or  borrowed  len- 
ience from  Worcester,  in  the  "  last  Revised,"  18G6, 
"  without,"  as  the  newspapers  say, "  giving  credit." 
But  the  ipse  dixit  —  or,  perhaps,  more  properly, 
the  lapsus  pennce  — of  one  man,  even  if  that  man 
is  a  writer  in  the  Edinburgh  Review,  cannot  make 
leniency  a  good  English  word.  It  lacks  what  is 
here  claimed  as  essential  to  legitimacy.  It  is  not 
properly  constructed  and  it  is  not  needed.  Its 


SPURIOUS  WORDS.  17 

place  is  already  occupied  by  the  legal  proprietor, 
and  its  last  syllable  is  akin  in  vulgarism  to  the  ize 
of  "jeopardize,"  and  the  ist  of  "  controversialist." 

There  is  a  necessity  for  insisting  strenuously  on 
this  point,  because  the  present  tendency  of  philo- 
logical corruption  is  strong  in  the  direction  of  mul- 
tiplying words  by  accumulating  final  syllables. 

A  book  called  "  John  Halifax  "  is  what  mer- 
chants would  call  "  a  fair  average  specimen  "  of 
contemporaneous  and  "  unreadable  "  novels.  Its 
author  cannot  claim  rank  as  a  good  writer,  in  the 
sense  of  a  philological  authority  ;  but  he  (or  she, 
perhaps)  writes  as  well  as  the  majority  of  authors 
in  that  particular  branch  of  writing  —  and  he  has 
readers  enough  to  make  his  example  pernicious,  if 
it  is  bad. 

In  that  book,  one  may  find,  among  other  vulgar- 
isms, conversationalist  and  experimentalize.  And  if 
one  will  take  the  trouble  to  look  into  Webster's 
last  Dictionary,  he  will  find  that  the  compilers  of 
that  work  —  true  to  the  modern  system  of  making 
each  new  dictionary  contain  "  ten  thousand  (more 
or  less)  words  not  contained  in  any  rival  work"  — 
have  duly  recorded  the  Halifax-additions  to  their 
vocabulary.  They  had  the  grace  to  note  the  latter 
word  as  "rare"  —  which,  let  us  all  hope,  it  may 
continue  to  be ! 

And  yet,  the  compilers  aforesaid,  but  half — 
indeed,  much  less  than  half — "  improved  their  op- 
portunity." For  if  "  conversationalist "  and  "ex- 
perimentalize "  are  legitimate  words,  there  is  no 


18  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Websterian  reason  for  refusing  them  such  legiti- 
mate descendants  as 

Conversationalistic,* 
Conversationalistically, 
Conversationalisticability, 
Conversationalisticableness ; 

Experimentalizer, 

Experimentalizistical, 

Experimentalizistically, 

Experimentalizisticability, 

Experimentalizisticableness. 

In  short  —  if  that  word  can  be  permitted  to  ap- 
pear on  the  same  page  with  those  philological 
Titans  —  there  would  seem  to  be  no  assignable 
limit  to  the  tagging  on  of  unmeaning  syllables, 
except  the  width  of  a  page. 

There  certainly  is  no  limit  to  the  manufacture 
of  new  words  by  the  addition  of  syllables  to  old 

*  The  Hon.  George  P.  Marsh,  unquestionably  an  accomplished 
philologist,  wrote  for  The  Nation  —  a  weekly  literary  paper  of  a 
high  order  of  literary  merit  —  a  scries  of  articles  on  Webster's 
Dictionary;  and  in  such  articles  one  would  naturally  look  for 
great  accuracy,  not  only  of  criticism,  but  of  style. 

Occasion  will  be  taken,  on  a  subsequent  page,  to  refer  again 
to  Mr.  Marsh.  He  is  mentioned  here  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
his  use  of  a  word  similar  to  those  above  specified.  His  sentence 
is  (The  Nation,  Sept.  20,  1866) :  — 

"  In  this  instance  —  the  first,  I  suppose,  in  which  the  word 
'sensuous'  occurs  —  it  probably  meant,  suggestive  of  images  of 
things  perceptible  by  the  senses ;  picturesque,  materialistic." 

Would  not  material  have  answered  the  purpose  of  a  scholar  likt 
Mr.  Marsh,  especially  when  he  was  criticising  a  dictionary  ? 


SPUKIOUS  WORDS.  19 

words,  if  we  once  admit  the  principle  of  equality 
in  the  republic  of  letters.  If,  in  that  republic,  one 
man's  word  is  as  good  as  another's,  those  who  as- 
sent to  leniency,  cannot  refuse,  by  and  by,  to  recog- 
nize such  vulgarisms  as 

Preventative, 

Rotatory, 

Casuality, 

and  so  forth.  Those  "  words,"  and  many  others 
akin  to  them,  are  already  in  constant  oral  use 
among  ignorant  people,  and  they  are  gradually 
working  their  way  up  among  people  of  some  edu- 
cation. And,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  there  is  no 
assignable  reason  why  they  should  not  eventually 
get  into  our  newspapers,  books,  and  dictionaries. 
Indeed,  rotatory  has  already  done  so. 

UNDERHANDED. 

This  "  word  "  is  formed  by  adding  to  the  adjec- 
tive underhand  a  participial  termination ;  but  the 
addition  still  leaves  the  word  an  adjective,  without 
in  the  least  modifying  the  sense  of  the  true  word. 
There  is  no  verb  to  underhand,  and  no  noun  an 
underhand,  from  which  such  a  compound  could  be 
made.  The  addition  of  ed,  therefore,  renders  the 
word  a  mere  vulgarism  ;  as  much  so  as  the  same 
addition  would  make  of  beforehand  and  behindhand. 

What  would  be  said  of  behindhanded?  Or,  take 
a  shorter  word,  bland —  and  make  it  Handed. 

Yet,  strange  to  say,  Worcester  accredits  the 
word  and  cites  Smart,  and  Webster  cites  Cole- 


20  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

ridge  !  —  two  strong  names  on  a  philological  ques* 
tion.  But  the  indorsement  is  not  strong  enough 
to  make  the  word  good.  It  is  no  better  than 
leniency ',  jeopardize,  etc. 

In  the  same  style  of  corruption,  but,  perhaps,  a 
little  lower  in  the  scale,  is  the  addition  of  a  syllable 
to  undermine.  This  corruption  has  not  yet  made  its 
appearance  in  newspapers  and  dictionaries,  but  it 
is  very  common  in  the  conversation  of  a  certain 
class  of  people,  and  may  be  considered  "  a  candi- 
date for  admission  "  into  the  dictionaries,  by  and 
by.  The  people  who  misuse  the  word  seem  to 
think  that  its  primary  formation  is  undermind, 
and  they  therefore  have  no  difficulty  in  saying, 
"  he  underminded  them." 

DONATE. 

Here  is  another  intruder  into  the  family  circle, 
which  "  has  not  on  a  wedding  garment." 

Webster,  of  course,  records  the  word ;  and  he 
gravely  gives  its  etymology,  "  from  donare,  dona- 
turn,"  etc., —  as  if  the  prig  who  fabricated  that  bit 
of  literature  ever  saw  a  Latin  dictionary,  or  ever 
heard  of  the  Latin  language  ! 

There  is  something  intensely  farcical  in  that 
solemn  etymology.  It  must  have  been  intended 
for  a  sly  joke.  All  the  world  knows  that  Johnson 
introduced  a  sly  joke  into  his  dictionary,  when  he 
defined  the  word  "  lexicographer  "  ;  and  it  seems 
that  Webster,  in  imitation  of  his  illustrious  prede- 
cessor, has  introduced  his  sly  joke  in  the  etymology 
of  donate. 


SPURIOUS   WORDS.  21 

Mr.  Richard  Grant  White,  who  is  well  known  as 
an  accurate  philologist,  not  long  ago  published  in 
the  New  York  Evening  Post  an  indignant  protest 
against  "  donate  "  ;  to  which  somebody,  with  per- 
haps equal  indignation,  but  by  no  means  with  equal 
ability,  responded,  by  elaborately  defending  dona- 
tion^ and  adding,  that  a  no  objection  could  be  urged 
against  the  proscribed  word  which  would  not  apply 
with  equal  force  against  donation"  The  writer  of 
these  pages  thereupon  "  volunteered  his  services  " 
to  the  following  effect :  — 

Certain  "  eatables,"  spread  on  a  table  on  certain 
occasions,  constitute  what  is  termed  a  collation. 
Would  you  say  to  a  friend  who,  with  you,  was 
standing  near  that  table,  "  Come,  let  us  collate  ?  " 
Or,  if  an  ovation  were  about  to  be  offered  to  a  great 
military  captain,  would  you  say,  "  We  intend  to 
ovate  General  Grant  to-morrow  ?  "  Or,  again,  if 
Mr.  Everett  were  about  to  deliver  his  oration  on 
Washington,  at  the  Academy  of  Music,  would  you 
say,  "  Let  us  go  to  hear  Everett  orate?  " 

"  Donate, '  then,  may  be  dismissed  with  this  re- 
mark :  so  long  as  its  place  is  occupied  by  give,  be- 
stow, grant,  present,  etc.,  it  is  not  needed ;  and  it 
should  be  unceremoniously  bowed  out,  or  thrust 
out,  of  the  seat  into  which  it  has,  temporarily,  in- 
truded. 

AUTHORESS,   ETC. 

There  is  yet  another  instance  of  this  propensity 
to  fabricate  new  words  by  the  addition  of  a  sylla- 
ble ;  but  it  is  not  altogether  so  modern  as  some  of 


22  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

the  preceding  cases.  That  is,  the  addition  of  ess 
to  those  nouns  which  indicate  persons,  in  order  to 
designate  females. 

The  entire  number  of  English  words  denoting 
persons,  which  properly  take  the  ess  for  such  desig- 
nation, is  very  small.  And  a  majority  of  those  are 
titles,  where  the  discrimination  is  a  matter  of  neces- 
sity ;  as  abbess,  baroness,  duchess,  countess,  empress, 
princess,  marchioness,  etc.  Or,  they  are  words  of 
which  the  primary  words  are  suggestive  of  men, 
and  which  therefore  require  the  change  when  they 
are  applied  to  women ;  as,  ambassador,  governor, 
hunter,  priest,  prophet,  etc. 

In  addition  to  those,  there  are  some  words  which 
long  usage  has  sanctioned,  although  a  good  reason 
can  hardly  be  given  for  their  admission  into  our 
vocabulary,  because  the  primary  words  serve  all  the 
purposes  of  their  substitutes.  Of  those,  are  actor, 
actress  ;  benefactor,  benefactress  ;  patron,  patroness. 

But  there  is  a  class  of  words,  some  of  them 
modern,  and  most  of  them  of  very  recent  fabrica- 
tion, which  sets  all  philological  principles  at  defi- 
ance. Two  of  them  that  are  the  least  objection- 
able to  ourselves,  because  they  are  the  most  familiar 
to  our  ears,  are  poetess  and  authoress  ;  but,  philo- 
logically,  they  are  just  as  absurd  as  any  of  their 
successors. 

Poet  means,  simply,  a  person  who  writes  poetry ; 
and  author,  in  the  sense  under  consideration,  a 
person  who  writes  poetry  or  prose  :  not  a  man  who 
writes,  but  a  person  who  writes.  Nothing,  in  either 


SPURIOUS  WORDS.  23 

word,  indicates  sex  ;  and  everybody  knows  that  the 
functions  of  both  poets  and  authors  are  common  to 
both  sexes.  Hence,  "  authoress  "  and  "  poetess  " 
are  superfluous.  And  they  are  superfluous,  also, 
in  another  respect,  —  that  they  are  very  rarely 
used,  indeed  they  hardly  can  be  used,  independent- 
ly of  the  name  of  the  writer ;  as,  Mrs.,  or  Miss,  or 
a  female  Christian  name.  They  are,  besides,  phi- 
lological absurdities,  because  they  are  fabricated  on 
the  false  assumption  that  their  primaries  indicate 
men.  They  are,  moreover,  liable  to  the  charge  of 
affectation  and  prettiness,  to  say  nothing  of  pedan- 
tic pretension  to  accuracy. 

If,  however,  those  two  words  have,  by  long  us- 
age, become  conventionally  endurable  ;  what  shall 
be  said  of  the  superfine  affectation,  prettiness,  and 
pedantry  of  conductress,  directress,  inspectress,  wait- 
ress, and  so  on,  which  have  become  as  plenty  as 
blackberries  ? 

Conductor  is  a  person  who  conducts  ;  director,  a 
person  who  directs  ;  inspector,  a  person  who  in- 
spects ;  waiter,  a  person  who  waits.  Yet  if  the  ess 
is  to  be  a  permitted  or  an  endured  addition  to 
those  words,  there  is  no  reason  in  language  or  in 
logic  for  excluding  it  from  any  noun  that  indicates 
a  person  ;  and  the  next  editions  of  our  dictionaries 
may  be  made  complete  by  the  addition  of  writeress, 
officeress,  manageress,  superintendentess,  secretaryess, 
treasureress,  singeress,  walkeress,  talheress,  and  so  on, 
to  the  end  of  the  vocabulary. 


24  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

FIRSTLY. 

This  is  still  another  word  of  the  class  with  the 
tagged  syllable.  It  is  frequently  used  by  those  who 
may  be  called  good  writers.  Even  Dickens,  whose 
style  is  far  above  that  of  novel-writers  generally,  of- 
ten uses  it.  There  is  no  need  of  expending  time  or 
argument  on  "  firstly."  No  lexicographer  has  yet 
ventured  to  accredit  it ;  and  Webster,  while  insert- 
ing it,  repudiates  it  thus,  —  "  improperly,  used  for 
first." 

As  an  instance  of  the  force  of  example,  and  of 
the  facility  with  which  good  writers  fall  into  errors 
of  which  examples  are  everywhere  current,  —  a 
late  number  of  Blackwood's  Magazine  contains 
"  firstly  "  ;  and  not  only  that,  but  in  the  same  par- 
agraph demean  is  used  in  the  sense  of  debase :  a 
subject  that  will  be  considered  in  another  chapter. 

TOWARD,   ETC. 

There  are  several  words  ending  in  ward  which 
the  spirit  of  innovation  has  "  improved  "  by  the 
addition  —  not,  indeed,  of  a  syllable,  but  —  of  a 
letter  ;  to  wit,  the  letter  s.  As,  toward,  towards, 
etc. 

Richardson  says,  "  Toward  is  made  up  of  two 
Saxon  words,  to  and  ward.  Ward,  or  weard,  is  the 
imperative  of  the  verb  wardian  or  weardian,  to 
look  at,  or  to  direct  the  view.  Ward  may  with 
propriety  be  joined  to  the  name  of  any  per- 
son, place,  or  thing,  to  or  from  which  our  sight 
may  be  directed,"  etc. 


SPURIOUS  WORDS.  25 

Hence,  we  have  backtvard,  forward,  toward,  up- 
?,  onward,  downward,  hitherward,  thitherward, 
afterward,  heavenward,  earthward,  and  so  on.  And 
early  English  writers  have  given  the  words  in  a 
separate  form ;  as,  for  example,  the  translators  of 
the  Bible  say  to  us  ward,  etc. 

But  where  is  there  a  warrant  for  the  addition  of 
the  final  s  to  any  of  the  words,  —  excepting  its  in- 
cidental, or  perhaps  accidental,  use  by  certain  old 
English  writers,  as  Milton,  Shakespeare,  Dr.  South, 
and  others  ?  Those  authors  are  doubtless  followed 
by  modern  writers  without  number  ;  but  also,  one 
might  suppose,  without  reflection  on  the  part  of 
the  writers ;  and  certainly  without  our  knowing 
that  the  fault  may  not  have  been  with  the  printer. 

The  etymology  of  the  word  furnishes  no  pre- 
text for  the  s;  its  addition  is  merely  arbitrary, — 
though,  also,  capricious;  for  few  writers  use  it 
uniformly.  If  any  person  should  seek  to  defend 
it,  he  must  carry  his  defence  beyond  the  imme- 
diate cases,  and  include  anyivhere,  everywhere,  no- 
where, anyway,  everyivay,  noway,  and  so  on.  Igno- 
rant usage  has  already  made  that  addition.  In  the 
common  parlance  of  uneducated  people,  nothing  is 
more  common  than  somewhere*,  anywheres,  any- 
ways, novvheres,  etc. ;  and,  as  yet,  nothing  is  more 
vulgar. 

STAND-POINT. 

But  of  all  the  instances  in  which  solemn  philo- 
logical blundering  has  recently  developed  itself, 
stand-point  stands  forth  as  the  bright  particular 

2 


26  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

star.  It  is  the  very  counterpart  of  Dogberry's 
"  non  eom"  It  faintly  suggests,  by  its  sound,  what 
the  French  call  "  a  suspicion  "  of  a  meaning ;  but 
the  moment  you  investigate  the  thing  and  attempt 
to  reach  the  meaning,  you  find  it  a  mere  will-o'-the- 
wisp. 

The  compound  is  used  for  point  of  view ;  but 
why,  is  not  obvious.  For  if  one  means  point  of 
view,  why  does  not  one  say  point  of  view  ? 

"  Stand-point "  does  not  mean  point  of  view  for 
two  good  reasons,  one  of  which  suffices ;  namely, 
it  does  not  mean  anything.  It  is  not  an  English 
word.  "  Stand,"  by  itself,  is  English ;  and  "  point," 
by  itself,  is  English :  but  the  two  words,  like  certain 
chemical  ingredients,  will  not  unite  until  a  com 
bining  medium  is  introduced  between  them. 

Thus,  also,  "  start,"  by  itself,  is  English ;  and  so, 
also,  is  "  point"  :  but  is  start-point  anything  ?  In- 
dependently of  the  question  of  meaning,  such  com 
binations  are  philologically  defective.  The  verbs 
stand  and  start,  in  those  cases,  must  be  changed  to 
adjectives  or  participles  before  they  can  combine 
with  the  noun  "  point." 

Stand«V?<7-point  and  starting-point  are  something. 
They  have  a  meaning.  They  are  kindred  in  con- 
struction to  landing-place,  and  other  familiar  terms ; 
and  they  mean,  simply,  the  place,  or  point,  where 
one  stands  or  whence  one  starts.  "  Stand-point," 
therefore,  to  be  English,  should  be  changed  to 
standing-point. 

But  when  the  investigator  reaches  this  "  point," 


SPURIOUS  WORDS.  27 

he  begins  to  see  the  point ;  to  wit,  that  stand-point 
certainly  does  not  mean  point  of  view,  although  that 
is  the  sense  in  which  it  is  constantly  used.  If, 
however,  those  persons  who  have  become  accus- 
tomed to  "  stand-point "  are  still  too  much  enam- 
oured with  its  conciseness  to  abandon  it  alto- 
gether, an  alternative  is  at  hand. 

Their  chief  and  sole  object  being  (as  it  needs 
must  be)  to  condense  "  point  of  view  "  into  one 
word,  of  two  syllables,  irrespectively  of  accurate 
philological  construction ;  and  since,  with  them, 
meaning  is  nothing  and  brevity  everything,  —  let 
them  say  and  write  view-point.  That  meets  the 
case  and  covers  the  ground.  "  View-point "  is 
precisely  the  same  sort  of  English  as  "  stand- 
point "  ;  and  it  possesses  the  substantial  advantage 
of  meaning  —  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  it  means  anything — what  the  speaker  or  writer 
intends  to  convey  by  "  stand-point." 

There  is  little  occasion  to  comment  particularly 
on  the  other  class  of  newly-made  words ;  those, 
namely,  that  are  properly  constructed  and  are 
needed ;  because  that  is  a  branch  of  philology  that 
will  always  assert  itself  and  protect  itself.  Words 
of  that  class  bear  their  own  credentials.  They 
need  no  advocacy  and  they  are  safe  from  criticism. 


28  GOOD  ENGLISH. 


MISUSED    WORDS. 

THE  spurious  words  are  less  numerous  than  the 
misused  words ;  but  in  both  categories  the  philo- 
logical heresy  has  the  same  origin,  character,  and 
tendency. 

BESIDE.    BESIDES. 

Our  lexicographers  have  contented  themselves 
with  leaving  these  two  words  as  they  find  them 
in  the  pages  of  good  and  bad  writers — jumbled 
together  without  any  attempt  at  discrimination  be- 
tween them.  But,  as  such  discrimination  is  im- 
portant, the  writer  of  this  volume,  having  failed  to 
find  a  satisfactory  elucidation  of  the  subject  in  any 
work  on  philology  then  within  his  reach,  ventured 
to  suggest  the  following  solution  of  the  difficulty 
through  the  medium  of  the  New  York  Evening 
Post,  in  or  about  the  year  1856. 

Beside  is  a  preposition,  meaning,  originally,  ly  the 
side  of;  as, 

"  The  lovely  Thais  sits  beside  thee  " ; 
and  usage  has  modified,  or  extended,  that  meaning 
co  one  side,  or,  out  of  the  regular  course;  as, 

"  It  is  beside  my  present  business  to  pursue  the 
minor  points  of  the  argument." 

And  it  has  been  further  modified  to  out  of,  or,  in 
a  state  of  deviation  from ;  as, 


MISUSED   WORDS.  29 

"  Paul,  thou  art  beside  thyself." 

Again,  besides  is  also  a  preposition  when  it  means 
in  addition  to  ;  as, 

"  Besides  all  this,  between  us  and  you  there  is  a 
great  gulf  fixed." 

And,  finally,  besides  is  an  adverb,  when  it  means 

moreover;  as, 

"  Set  you  down  this  ; 
And  say,  besides,  that  in  Aleppo  once, 
When  a  malignant  and  a  turbaned  Turk,"  etc. 

The  sum  of  the  matter,  then,  is,  —  that  beside  is 
always  a  preposition,  and  only  a  preposition.  Be- 
sides, also,  is  a  preposition  when  it  means  in  addi- 
tion to;  but  when  it  means  moreover,  it  is  an 
adverb. 

Hence,  not  only  is  the  use  of  beside  as  an  adverb 
an  error,  but  the  error  is  aggravated  by  its  taint 
of  affectation :  it  smacks  of  attempted  prettiness 
in  style.  And  that  painful  result  also  ensues  when 
the  preposition  meaning  in  addition  to  is  deprived 
of  its  s.  These  are  the  two  examples :  — 

"  And  beside  all  this,  between  us  and  you  there 
is  a  great  gulf." 

"  And  say,  beside,  that  in  Aleppo  once." 

In  a  preceding  paragraph,  it  is  remarked  that 
our  lexicographers  have  left  these  two  words  as 
they  found  them,  etc.  That  was  true  at  the  time 
it  was  written.  But  the  last  edition  of  Webster 
(1866)  has  the  following  comments,  which,  in  sub- 
stance, are  nearly  identical  with  what  was  thus 
written  in  1856.  They  are  reproduced  here  for 


30  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

the  twofold  purpose  of  relieving  the  writer  of  this 
book  from  a  suspicion  of  plagiarism ;  and  to  show 
that  his  views,  as  then  expressed,  are  so  far  cor- 
roborated :  — 

"Beside.  Besides.  These  words,  whether  used  as 
prepositions  or  adverbs,  have  been  considered  strict- 
ly synonymous  from  an  early  period  of  our  liter- 
ature and  have  been  freely  interchanged  by  our 
best  writers.  There  is,  however,  a  tendency  in 
present  usage  to  make  the  following  distinction 
between  them.  1.  That  beside  be  used  only  and 
always  as  a  preposition,  with  the  original  meaning 
by  the  side  of;  as,  to  sit  beside  a  fountain ;  or,  with 
the  closely  allied  meaning  aside  from,  or  out  of; 
as,  this  is  beside  our  present  purpose  :  '  Paul,  thou 
art  beside  thyself.'  The  adverbial  sense  to  be  wholly 
transferred  to  the  cognate  word.  2.  That  besides, 
as  a  preposition,  take  the  remaining  sense,  in  addi- 
tion to;  as,  besides  all  this;  besides  the  consider- 
ations here  offered:  'There  was  a  famine  in  the 
land  besides  the  first  famine.'  And  that  it  also  take 
the  adverbial  sense  of  moreover,  beyond,  etc.,  which 
had  been  divided  between  the  words ;  as,  besides, 
there  are  other  considerations  which  belong  to  this 
case." 

LADY-      WIFE. 

The  word  lady,  as  a  substitute  for  wife,  is  a  snob- 
bish vulgarism,  which  may  have  originated  with  a 
clerk  in  a  hotel. 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Somebody  arrived  at  the  hotel,  and 
the  clerk  officiously  recorded  their  names  —  "  Mr. 
Somebody  and  Lady." 


MISUSED   WOEDS.  31 

Nevertheless,  the  word  wife,  as  Caesar  says  of 
the  polar  star, 

"  Has  no  fellow  in  the  firmament." 

It  has  neither  synonyme  nor  substitute  ;  and  any 
attempt  to  fabricate  either,  is  a  sort  of  philological 
affront  to  the  original. 

On  the  other  hand,  lady  is,  to  a  certain  extent, 
interchangeable  with  ivoman.  As  a  descriptive 
term,  it  serves  to  discriminate  between  the  orders 
of  society ;  and,  so  far  forth,  it  indicates  position, 
cultivation,  refinement.  Yet  it  is  by  no  means 
essentially  the  superior  word.  For  example, 

"  O  woman,  in  our  hours  of  ease, 
Uncertain,  coy,  and  hard  to  please, 
When  pain  and  anguish  wring  the  brow, 
A  ministering  angel  thou." 

And,  in  Portia's  reply  to  Brutus,  Julius  Ca3sar, 
Act  II.  Sc.  1 :  — 

"  Brutus.  You  are  my  true  and  honourable  wife  ; 
As  dear  to  me  as  are  the  ruddy  drops 
That  visit  this  sad  heart. 

Portia.  If  this  were  true,  then  should  I  know  this  secret. 
I  grant,  I  am  a  ivoman ;  but,  withal, 
A  woman  that  Lord  Brutus  took  to  wife. 
I  grant  I  am  a  woman  ;  but,  withal, 
A  woman  well  reputed,  —  Gate's  daughter. 
Think  you,  I  am  no  stronger  than  my  sex, 
Being  so  fathered  and  so  husbanded  ?  " 

In  cases  like  those,  lady  would  make  but  a  sorry 
figure  as  a  substitute  for  ivoman. 


82  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

But,  in  the  case  of  the  other  Portia  —  Merchant 
of  Venice,  Act  III.  Sc.  3  —  woman  would  fare 
quite  as  indifferently  :  — 

"  Bassanio.  Gentle  lady, 

When  I  did  first  impart  my  love  to  you, 
I  freely  told  you,  all  the  wealth  I  had 
Kan  in  my  veins ;  I  was  a  gentleman  ; 
And  then  I  told  you  true.     And  yet,  dear  lady, 
Rating  myself  at  nothing,  you  shall  see 
How  much  I  was  a  braggart." 

The  result  is,  then,  that  in  a  personal  address, 
as  in  Bassanio's  instance,  lady  is  the  indispensable 
word  ;  and  it  is  also  indispensable  as  a  descriptive 
or  discriminating  term.  But,  as  the  synonyme  of 
wife,  it  is  an  imwarrantable  and  depreciating  vul- 
garism, quite  unbecoming  educated  people. 

COUPLE. 

Couple,  as  the  synonyme  of  two,  is  a  more  diffi 
cult  subject  than  lady,  because  it  has  the  support 
of  more  general,  if  not  higher,  authority. 

The  noun  couple  is  necessarily  the  result  of  the 
verb  to  couple.  The  act  of  coupling  precedes  the 
fact  of  being  coupled,  and  therefore  the  meaning 
of  the  noun  is  controlled  by  the  meaning  of  the 
verb. 

The  verb,  etymologically  and  by  the  dictionaries, 
means  to  link,  chain,  fasten,  or  connect  one  thing 
with  another,  and  those  definitions  provide  for  all 
possible  cases  of  two  joined. 

Again,  the  noun  is  thus  defined  in  our  diction- 
aries : 


MISUSED   WORDS.  33 

"  Two  tilings  of  the  same  kind  connected  to- 
gether ;  a  pair  ;  a  brace.  A  male  and  female  con- 
nected by  betrothal  or  marriage." 

Hence,  any  "  two,"  on  being  fastened,  chained, 
joined,  linked,  connected  together,  become  a  couple; 
and  any  two  not  joined,  etc.,  are  not  a  couple. 

Certain  other  words  are  used,  in  a  sort  of  tech- 
nical sense,  to  signify  two  together,  or  two  alike,  but 
not  necessarily  united ;  as,  a  pair,  a  brace,  a  yoke 
(of  oxen),  and,  in  American  English,  referring  to 
horses,  a  span. 

These  words,  in  their  appropriate  connections,  all 
designate  two  things  having  something  in  common. 
Yet,  while  these  words  —  not  one  of  which  neces- 
sarily involves  the  fact  of  two  united  —  are  always 
used  discriminately,  and  never  as  the  mere  syno- 
nyme  of  two;  couple,  which  does  inevitably  involve 
the  fact  of  two  united,  is  used  twdiscriminately  as 
the  synonyme  of  two,  and  in  reference  to  things 
that  are  never  united  ! 

People  of  all  classes,  and  writers  of  all  positions, 
without  the  slightest  misgiving,  compunction,  or 
remorse,  daily  fabricate  such  phrases  as  a  couple 
of  days,  a  couple  of  dollars,  a  couple  of  eggs,  a 
couple  of  books,  a  couple  of  weeks,  months,  or  years  ; 
and  so  on,  to  the  end  of  English  nouns-substantive. 

And  for  all  that,  those  very  people  and  those 
very  writers  would  laugh  to  scorn  any  man  who 
ventured  to  say,  a  brace  of  days,  weeks,  months,  or 
years  ;  a  yoke  of  eggs ;  a  pair  of  dollars  ;  a  span 
of  books. 

2*  c 


34  GOOD   ENGLISH. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  laugh  and  the  scorn, 
the  latter  phrases  are  not  only  no  worse  than  the 
former,  but  they  are  more  nearly  correct  than 
the  former,  because  they  do  not  involve  an  ab- 
surdity. 

A  pair  of  days,  for  example,  is  a  physical  possi- 
bility ;  for  the  two  days  may  be  essentially  alike, 
and  as  near  together  —  before,  after,  or  by  the 
side  of  each  other  —  as  two  things  can  be  :  but  a 
couple  of  days  is  a  physical  impossibility,  because 
the  two  days  cannot  be  "  linked  or  fastened  togeth- 
er." And  that  is  substantially  true  of  the  other 
"  couples  "  here  designated  ;  as,  eggs,  dollars,  and 
books  —  which,  indeed,  might  be  linked  or  fastened 
together,  but  which  in  fact  never  are  so. 

DEMEAN. 

This  word  is  often  used  in  the  sense  of  debase  — 
a  blunder  which  has  no  better  apology  for  its  exist- 
ence than  the  fact  that  the  second  syllable  of  the 
word,  when  separated  from  the  first,  signifies  some- 
thing akin  to  debasement :  just  as  the  second  syl- 
lable of  deride,  when  separated  from  the  first,  sig- 
nifies taking  a  ride  !  Or,  again  —  which  is  more 
immediately  applicable  —  as  meaning  might  be 
used  in  the  place  of  grovelling. 

The  verb  demean  and  the  noun  demeanour  have 
a  common  signification :  to  behave,  to  conduct, 
well  or  ill ;  behaviour,  conduct,  good  or  bad. 

If  an  educated  man  were  to  set  about  attaching 
a  new  meaning  to  the  verb,  he  would  see  the 


MISUSED  WOEDS.  85 

necessity  of  attaching  a  cognate  meaning  to  the 
noun.  If  he  made  demean  signify  debase,  he  must 
make  demeanour  signify  debasement,  or  base  con- 
duct ;  the  absurdity  of  which  is,  or  should  be, 
sufficient  to  dispose  of  the  question. 

The  lexicographers  have  very  indifferently  dis- 
charged their  duty  in  regard  to  demean. 

Johnson  gives  debase  as  a  secondary  definition, 
and  cites  Shakespeare  as  one  who  used  the  word  in 
that  sense.  But  when  the  reader  goes  behind 
Johnson's  certificate,  he  finds  that  Johnson  is  at 
fault. 

The  antecedents  of  the  quoted  line,  Comedy  of 
Errors,  Act  IV.  Sc.  3, 

"  Else  he  would  never  so  demean  himself," 

show  that  Shakespeare's  meaning  debase  by  "  de- 
mean," is  arbitrarily  assumed  by  Johnson.  Any 
person  can  see  for  himself,  by  examining  the  pas- 
sage, that  if  behave,  or  conduct,  were  substituted 
for  "  demean," 

"  Else  he  would  never  so  beJiave  himself," 
"  Else  he  would  never  so  conduct  himself," 

the  sense  of  the  line  would  remain  unchanged. 

Webster  blindly  follows  Johnson  as  to  the  defini- 
tion and  authority,  but  he  introduces  a  blunder  of 
his  own  by  adding  "not  used."  It  certainly  is 
"used,"  frequently,  and  by  men  of  education. 
The  "use"  is  a  matter  of  common  observation 
among  all  persons  who  take  notice  of  language. 

Worcester  gives  the  same  definition,  and  cites 


86  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Doddridge:  and  Worcester  is  at  least  correct  in 
his  citation.  But  the  passage  quoted  is  one  of  re- 
ligious rhapsody,  in  which  the  writer  may  not  have 
paused  much  on  the  selection  of  words.  Besides, 
Doddridge  may  be  better  authority  as  a  theologian 
than  as  a  philologist. 

At  any  rate,  until  the  advocates  of  the  "  debase  " 
definition  are  prepared  to  accept  its  consequence, — 
that  then  demeanour  means  debasement,  or,  more 
properly,  base  conduct,  —  further  argument  may  be 
safely  postponed. 

CONSEQUENCE. 

This  word  is  constantly  used  by  everybody  in 
the  sense  of  importance;  although,  etymological- 
ly,  there  is  nothing  in  common  between  the  two 
words. 

Consequence  comes  from  the  Latin  consequentia 
and  the  French  consequence;  which,  respectively, 
come  from  the  Latin  prefix  con  and  the  Latin  verb 
sequor,  to  follow.  The  chief  element  of  the  noun 
is,  therefore,  sequence,  a  result,  something  that 
follows. 

On  the  other  hand,  importance  refers  to  things 
of  moment  in  themselves,  independently  of  what 
follows. 

Yet  here,  also,  the  lexicographers  are  very  much 
in  fault. 

Johnson  gives  as  a  seventh  and  final  definition 
of  "consequence,"  importance,  moment;  and  again 
he  cites  Shakespeare  erroneously.  He  quotes,  in 
support  of  his  definition,  Macbeth,  Act  I.  Sc.  3  :  — 


MISUSED  WORDS.  37 

"  But,  't  is  strange ; 

And  oftentimes,  to  win  us  to  our  harm, 
The  instruments  of  darkness  tell  us  truths ; 
Win  us  with  honest  trifles,  to  betray  us 
In  deepest  consequence." 

Whereas,  in  that  extract,  "  consequence  "  is  used 
in  its  primary  sense,  and  "  deepest "  is  the  word 
that  conveys  the  sense  of  "  importance."  "  Deep- 
est consequence"  is  equivalent  to  the  direst  result; 
the  most  important  sequel,  etc. 

The  erroneous  citation  of  Johnson  thus  leaves 
one  in  doubt  —  so  far,  at  least,  as  the  dictionary  is 
concerned  —  whether  the  Doctor  intended  to  give 
his  own  sanction  to  the  definitions  of  "  demean  " 
and  "  consequence  "  ;  or,  merely,  to  place  them  in 
his  vocabulary  and  leave  the  student  to  adopt  or 
reject  them,  according  to  his  own  estimate  of 
Shakespeare  as  an  authority.  The  student  has, 
indeed,  the  privilege  of  consulting  Johnson's  other 
works,  to  ascertain  whether  the  lexicographer  gives 
those  definitions  the  sanction  of  his  own  practice  ; 
but  that  is  another  matter. 

If  etymology  is  to  control  the  point,  the  result  is 
not  doubtful.  On  that  ground,  a  consequence  is 
a  something  that  follows  from  an  antecedent,  or  a 
cause ;  a  following ;  a  result.  And  in  that  sense, 
the  familiar  phrase  "  it  is  of  no  consequence  "  — 
'which  phrase,  with  some  variations,  is  the  form  in 
which  the  word  is  questionably  used  —  is  precisely 
equivalent  to  "  it  is  of  no  following,  or  result " ; 
which  means  nothing.  It  might  be  made  to  mean 


38     •  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

something  by  a  substitution  of  the  verb  has  for  the 
verb  is,  —  " it  has  no  following"  no  sequence,  no 
result ;  but  that  is  not  what  the  speaker,  or  writer, 
of  the  phrase  means. 

The  phrase,  however,  is  now  so  universally  used, 
and  it  is  so  generally  accredited  by  both  lexicog- 
raphers and  good  writers,  that  no  man  can  be 
justified  in  asserting  dogmatically  that  it  is  a  cor- 
ruption of  language.  But  it  is  unquestionably  a 
departure  from  "first  principles,"  and  it  may  at 
least  be  deplored  by  conservative  philologists. 
Perhaps,  now  and  then,  one  or  more  of  such  per 
sons  will  avoid  the  phrase! 

PREDICATE. 

The  verb  predicate  comes  to  us  from  the  Lat- 
in prcedico-care,  to  cry  in  public,  to  proclaim ; 
whence,  also,  comes  to  preach.  And  to  predict 
comes  from  a  similar  Latin  root,  —  prce,  before, 
and  dico-cere,  to  say  or  tell.  All  of  which  goes 
to  show  that  the  functions  of  the  etymological 
family,  whence  predicate  descends,  are  limited  to 
speaking,  saying,  telling,  etc.  And  our  lexicog- 
raphers generally  agree  in  so  limiting  the  defi- 
nition of  predicate ;  namely,  to  say,  to  affirm,  to 
declare.  Webster  extends  it  to  "  to  affirm  ;  to 
assert  to  belong  to  something  ;  as,  to  predicate 
whiteness  of  snow."  Which  is  all  very  well.  But 
Webster,  strange  to  say !  adds  a  secondary  defini- 
tion which  shall  be  quoted  in  a  subsequent  para- 
graph. 


MISUSED  WORDS.  39 

Ignorant  usage — and  very  ignorant  usage  it  must 
be  —  in  the  United  States,  has  recently  paraded 
predicate  in  the  sense  of  to  found;  as,  "his  ar- 
gument was  predicated  on  the  assumption,"  etc. ; 
"  my  opinion  is  predicated  on  the  belief,"  and  so 
forth. 

The  word  is  used  in  that  sense  in  the  pulpit,  at 
the  bar,  and  of  course  in  novels  and  newspapers. 
But  it  no  more  means  to  found,  than  it  means  to 
build,  or  to  destroy.  And  the  good  people  who  are 
aiding  in  the  circulation  of  this  philological  im- 
posture might  as  well  say,  if  they  will  misuse  the 
word, 

"  Jenkins  predicated  his  house  in  the  short  space 
of  three  months ;  but  it  was  predicated  to  the  ground 
during  the  great  fire  of  the  1st  of  February." 

Yet,  mad  as  the  people  may  be  on  this  point,  it 
seems  that  one  lexicographer  is  "  as  mad  as  they." 
The  last  Revised  Edition  of  Webster  gives  as  a 
secondary  definition  of  predicate, 

"  To  rest  upon  for  proof,  or  as  an  assertion  or  an  opinion  ; 
to  found ;  to  base  ;  [U.  S.]  " 

for  which  profound  definition  the  "  U.  S."  are  made 
responsible. 

The  events  of  the  last  five  years  have  shown  to 
the  world  that  the  "  U.  S."  are  able  to  do  almost 
anything;  but  whether  they  are  "able  to  respond" 
to  the  liability  of  that  definition,  is  a  matter  of 
great  doubt  in  some  minds. 

Alack!  who  can  hope  to  stay  the  progress  of 
corruption  in  language,  when  the  very  men  who 


40  GOOD   ENGLISH. 

should  be  its  guardians  actually  help  on  the  cor- 
ruption ? 

EITHER.     NEITHER. 

Either  is  an  Anglo-Saxon  word,  having  two  op- 
posite significations  ;  but  with  this  in  common,  that 
each  of  them  refers  to  two  objects,  and  two  only. 

Either  means  one  or  the  other  in  such  phrases  as 
"  either  Monday  or  Tuesday  "  ;  "  either  John  or 
Peter,"  etc.  And  it  means  each  when  we  say 
"  forests  on  either  side  of  the  river." 

In  the  second  sense  it  is,  probably,  never  mis- 
used. In  the  first,  it  is  often  applied  to  more  than 
two;  as,  "either  Monday,  Tuesday,  or  Wednes- 
day" ;  "either  of  the  twelve  jurors,"  and  so  on. 
And  this  misuse  has  the  sanction  of  all  writers  and 
all  lexicographers.  The  authorities  are  as  nearly 
unanimous  as  may  be. 

Yet,  the  lexicographers  agree  in  the  primary 
definition  of  the  word.  They  all  say  "  one  or  the 
other,"  which  necessarily  means  of  two,  and  no  more. 

And  the  same  remark  as  to  definition  is  true  of 
neither;  namely,  "  not  either";  "not  one  or  the 
other,"  which  word  therefore  refers,  negatively,  to 
two  and  no  more.  Yet  it  is  misused  in  precisely 
the  same  way :  "  neither  Monday,  Tuesday,  nor 
Wednesday";  "neither  of  the  twelve  jurors,"  and 
so  forth. 

It  is  marvellous  that  so  palpable  an  error  could 
have  gained  so  general  a  circulation  ;  and  equally 
marvellous  is  it,  that  men  of  education  will  con 
thine  to  sanction  the  error. 


MISUSED   WORDS.  41 

Look,  for  a  moment,  at  an  illustration.  Either 
means  one  or  the  other ;  both  means  one  and  the 
other.  Thus,  each  of  them  refers  to  two,  and  two 
only.  Now,  imagine  the  phrase,  "  both  Monday, 
Tuesday,  and  Wednesday";  "both  John,  Peter, 
and  James  "  ;  "  both  of  the  twelve  jurors."  Would 
any  person  endure  such  expressions  ?  Would  any 
amount  of  usage  justify  them  ?  Yet  both,  in  such 
instances,  is  quite  as  correct  as  neither  or  either. 

Besides,  such  a  use  of  "both"  is  not  an  imagi- 
nary case.  Trench,  in  "  English  Past  and  Present," 
says :  "  And  thus  it  will  come  to  pass  that  what 
seems,  and  in  fact  is,  the  newer  swarm,  will  have 
many  older  words,  and  very  often  an  archaic  air 
and  old-world  fashion  both  about"  [these  words 
should  be  transposed,  —  "  about  both,"  —  which  is 
another  blunder  of  the  Dean's]  "  the  words  they 
use,  the  pronunciation  of  the  words,  and  the  order 
and  manner  in  which  they  combine  them." 

As  to  either,  Trench,  in  the  same  book,  manages 
to  apply  it  to  no  less  than  five  subjects  in  this  sen- 
tence :  "  Either  the  words  were  not  idiomatic,  or 
were  not  intelligible,  or  were  not  needed,  or  looked 
ill,  or  sounded  ill,  or  some  other  valid  reason 
existed  against  them." 

In  addition  to  the  misuse  of  either  and  neither, 
these  words  are  both  frequently  mispronounced ; 
particularly,  by  clergymen. 

The  pronunciation  of  English  words  is  nearly 
independent  of  philological  rules,  and  it  depends 
almost  altogether  on  usage.  This  is  proved  by  n 


42  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

single  illustration.  If  there  were  any  rule  in  the 
case,  how  could  the  pronunciation  of  the  several 
words  ending  in  ougJi  be  otherwise  than  uniform, 
instead  of  their  having  four  entirely  distinct  sounds 
—  to  the  horror  of  all  foreigners  ?  Etymology  has 
some  influence  on  orthoepy  sometimes ;  and  so, 
sometimes,  has  analogy ;  but,  on  the  whole,  cus- 
tom is  supreme. 

The  lexicographers  with  great  uniformity  give 
the  pronunciation  of  these  two  words,  e-ther  and 
ne-ther.  Webster  says  "  e-ther  is  the  pronuncia- 
tion given  in  nearly  all  the  English  dictionaries, 
and  is  still  the  prevailing  one  in  the  United  States ; 
v-th&r  has  of  late  become  somewhat  common  in 
England.  Analogy,  however,  as  well  as  the  best 
and  most  general  usage,  is  decidedly  in  favor  of 
e-ther." 

In  these  circumstances,  it  is  clear  that  the  ma- 
jority has  the  best  of  the  argument.  For  the 
great  preponderance  of  usage  has  taken  one  side 
of  the  question ;  and  as  there  is  no  philological 
rule  or  principle  to  warrant  a  change,  and  as, 
besides,  there  is  no  need  of  a  change,  the  oppo- 
sing minority  become  mere  schismatics,  who  can 
give  no  higher  reason  for  their  action  than  their 
own  private  opinion  or  caprice  ;  and  that  is  a  very 
poor  excuse  for  an  innovation. 

A  common  reply,  in  the  United  States,  to  the 
question,  "  Why  do  you  say  i-ther  and  ni-ther?"  is, 
"  The  words  are  so  pronounced  by  the  best-edu- 
cated people  in  England."  But  that  reply  is  not 


MISUSED  WORDS.  43 

true.  That  is  to  say,  a  majority  of  the  best 
English  usage  is  not  on  that  side  of  the  question. 

All  that  any  man  in  the  United  States  can  gain 
by  the  pronunciation  of  i-ther  and  ni-ther  is  the 
credit,  or  the  discredit,  of  affectation,  or  ostenta- 
tion, —  as  who  should  say,  "  /know how  they  do  it 
in  England  "  :  for  assuredly,  that  pronunciation  is 
not  sanctioned  by  a  majority  of  our  best-educated 
men.  The  number  of  those  who  use  it  here,  is  but 
a  very  small  minority. 

In  society,  i-ther  and  ni-ther  are  not  of  much 
moment ;  because  any  member  of  the  disapproving 
majority  can  "  avenge  himself "  on  his  learned 
friend,  by  rejoining  e-ther  and  ne-ther.  And,  at 
any  rate,  little  inaccuracies  and  inelegancies  — 
not,  however,  affectations  !  —  of  language  may  as 
well  be  tolerated  in  common  colloquy,  because 
they  are  inevitable. 

But  i-ther  and  ni-ther  in  public  speaking,  and 
especially  in  the  pulpit,  where  they  are  now  be- 
ginning to  take  the  horrible  proportions  of  a 
fashion,  are  grievous  annoyances  to  which  a  help- 
less audience  should  not  be  subjected. 

Of  all  men  in  the  world,  a  clergyman,  in  his 
official  capacity,  should  avoid  peculiarity,  not  to 
say  affectation,*  not  to  say  ostentation ;  and  what- 

*  "  In  man  or  woman,  but  far  most  in  man, 
And  most  of  all  in  man  that  ministers 
And  serves  the  altar,  in  my  soul  I  loathe 
All  affectation.     'T  is  my  perfect  scorn ; 
Object  of  my  implacable  disgust." 

COWPER. 


44  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

ever  his  "  private  judgment "  may  be,  as  to  the 
merits  of  the  question,  the  fact  remains,  that  i-ther 
and  ni-ther  smack  strongly  of  those  qualities,  and 
therefore  they  "  are  not  expedient." 

PARAPHERNALIA. 

The  constant  misuse  of  this  word  has  caused  it 
almost  entirely  to  lose  its  original  signification.  It 
is  a  law-term  and  only  a  law-term,  originally ;  and  it 
so  continues.  Any  use  of  it,  out  of  the  law,  can- 
not be  appropriate.  A  man  cannot  have  parapher- 
nalia. As  it  is  thus  a  law-term,  "  the  people  " 
would  do  much  better  to  let  it  alone.  But  as  it  is 
a  long  word,  the  attempt  to  make  them  let  it  alone 
is  something  like  trying  to  make  a  boy  let  a  long 
stick  of  candy  alone.  As  Hamlet  says  of  "  French 
falconers,"  they  "  fly  it  at  anything  they  see,"  — 
appendages,  ornaments,  trappings ;  in  short,  a  mis- 
cellaneous collection  of  any  sort  of  things. 

Not  long  ago,  a  remonstrance  against  a  public 
procession  on  a  Sunday,  signed  by  a  number  of 
citizens,  including  many  clergymen  and  other 
educated  men,  was  published  in  the  newspapers ; 
and  that  remonstrance  contained  the  word  para- 
phernalia no  less  than  three  times,  all  in  the  same 
sense  as  this,  — 

"  The  employment  of  Sunday  for  public  pageants, 
with  bands  of  music  and  the  paraphernalia,  and 
noisy  accompaniment,  of  a  great  procession,"  etc. 

But  what  are  paraphernalia  ?  The  word  comes 
from  the  Greek,  through  the  Latin,  with  very  little 


MISUSED   WORDS.  45 

change  of  spelling  or  pronunciation,  and  its  mean- 
ing is,  simply  and  concisely,  beyond  dower ;  inde- 
pendent of  dower ;  that  is,  over  and  above  dower ; 
and,  when  combined  in  Law-Latin  thus,  parapJier 
nalia  bona,  it  means  "  goods  in  the  wife's  disposal," 
— "  articles  which  a  wife  brings  with  her  at  her 
marriage,  beyond  her  dower  or  jointure." 

Those  "  articles,"  or  "  goods,"  may  happen  to 
consist  of  ornaments  and  appendages  in  the  way 
of  female  finery ;  and  they  may  not.  The  word 
refers  to  the  tenure,  and  not  to  the  nature,  of  the 
property.  The  articles  are  paraphernalia,  not  be- 
cause they  are  —  if  they  are  —  ornaments  and  ap- 
pendages, but  because  they  are  articles  of  a  wife's 
property,  apart  from  her  dower. 

How  absurd  is  it,  then,  to  apply  the  word  to  the 
appendages  of  a  public  procession  ! 

ALTERNATIVE. 

This  word  means  a  choice  —  one  choice  —  be- 
tween two  things.  Yet  popular  usage  has  so 
corrupted  it,  that  it  is  now  commonly  applied  to 
the  things  themselves,  and  not  to  the  choice 
between  them  ;  as  thus.  "  You  may  take  either  al- 
ternative " ;  "I  was  forced  to  choose  between  two 
alternatives."  And,  indeed,  some  people  go  so  far 
as  to  say  "  several  alternatives  were  presented  to 
him." 

Nevertheless,  if  the  primary  meaning  is  respect- 
ed, there  can  be  but  one  alternative  in  any  one 
case.  Two  alternatives  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 


46  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

OUR  MUTUAL  FEIEND. 

This  is,  so  to  speak,  one  of  the  approved  vulgar- 
isms of  the  day  ;  and,  notwithstanding  the  num- 
berless exposures  of  its  vulgarity,  in  newspapers, 
reviews,  and  elsewhere,  it  continues  to  flourish  and 
increase.  Apparently,  nothing  can  stop  it. 

There  is  no  ambiguity  or  uncertainty  about  the 
definition  of  "  mutual."  The  lexicographers  all 
agree  upon  it.  It  means  simply,  reciprocal,  inter- 
changed;  whence  anybody  can  see  that  it  may 
apply  to  actions  only  and  not  to  things  ;  or,  to  speak 
more  precisely,  not  to  living  things,  or  persons. 

The  actions  may  be  mental  or  physical,  —  of  the 
mind  or  of  the  body.  People  may  reciprocally, 
interchangeably,  mutually,  love,  hate,  admire,  etc. 
Or,  they  may  reciprocally,  etc.  strike  each  other. 
Passions,  sentiments,  affections,  actions,  may  be 
reciprocal,  or  mutual ;  but  the  actors,  the  persons 
themselves,  cannot  be  so.  Friendship  may  be 
mutual ;  but  not  the  friends.  Is  not  that  plain  ? 

But  for  all  that,  the  person  who  reads  this  page, 
and  turns  from  the  page  to  a  newspaper,  will  prob- 
ably find  "  our  mutual  friend  "  in  plain,  unblush- 
ing typography !  * 

*  Dickens  has  assumed  a  very  unenviable  responsibility  in  the 
matter  of  "mutual  friend."  He  not  only  frequently  uses  the 
phrase  in  his  writings,  but  he  has  published  a  novel  bearing  the 
title  of  "  Our  Mutual  Friend,"  when  any  other  title  would  have  an- 
swered his  purpose.  Indeed,  the  title  bears  no  relation  whatever 
to  the  story.  This  is  a  defiance  of  public  opinion,  for  which  no 
apology  could  be  offered. 

There  is  a  show  of  defence  for  Dickens  in  his  pronunciation  of 


MISUSED   WORDS.  47 

OVER   HIS   SIGNATURE. 

No  well-educated  man  could  have  originated 
such  a  preposterous  conceit  as  the  phrase  "  over  his 
signature  "  ;  yet  many  well-educated  men  permit 
themselves  to  follow  the  example,  that  ignorance 
has  placed  before  them  ;  and  if  usage  could  sanc- 
tion so  stupid  a  blunder,  the  phrase  would  soon 
become  good  English. 

The  words  under  and  over  have  various  mean- 
ings, besides  the  designation  of  mere  locality. 

The  terms  "  under  oath,"  "  under  hand  and  seal," 
"  under  arms,"  "  under  compulsion,"  "  under  the 
sanction  of,",  "under  his  own  hand,"  "  under  his 
own  signature,"  and  so  on,  are  fully  established 
and  authorized  forms  of  expression  ;  which  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  relative  positions  of  the  per- 
sons and  things  indicated  :  they  are  idiomatic. 

Yet,  one  or  more  of  those  "persons  who  come  to 
town  every  day,"  will  every  day,  for  all  time  to 
come,  announce  that  — 

Whereas  mankind  have  hitherto  innocently  used 
the  phrase  "  under  his  own  signature,"  in  innocent 
unconsciousness  that  the  signature  is  at  the  bottom 
of  the  instrument  signed,  they  —  mankind  —  will 
take  note  that  nothing  can  be  under  a  thing  when 

* 

'umble,  —  that  is,  in  his  attempting  to  put  the  stamp  of  vulgarity  on 
that  pronunciation  ;  because,  however  indefensible  Aumble  may 
be,  —  and  that  point  will  be  fully  considered  in  a  subsequent  part 
of  this  volume,  —  at  least  there  are  "two  sides  to  the  question." 
But  no  philologist  defends,  or  attempts  to  defend,  "  our  mutual 
friend." 


48  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

it  is  over  it,  —  nothing  can  be  under  that  which  is 
itself  under  everything  ;  and  that  the  said  expression 
should  be  changed  to  "  over  his  signature  "  ;  for 
the  plain  reason  that  the  contents  of  the  instrument 
precede,  and  stand  above,  to  wit,  over,  the  name  at 
the  bottom.  That  is  conclusive,  because  there  is 
no  arguing  against  facts. 

But  the  proclaimer  of  that  rule  should  follow  it 
to  its  consequences.  He  should  further  declare 
that  "  under  seal "  is  just  as  disastrous  an  error  as 
its  predecessor,  because  the  seal  is  also  at  the  bot- 
tom. Furthermore,  "  under  arms "  cannot  be 
correct,  because  a  soldier  when  under  arms  is  not 
under  arms  :  that  never  happens  until  he  is  buried 
with  his  musket  or  his  sword  across  his  breast. 
"  Under  oath  "  is  equally  heretical,  because  the 
oath  is  mere  breath  ;  which,  being  exhaled,  is 
around  the  witness,  not  over  him.  And  finally, 
"  under  compulsion  "  may  be  right ;  but  it  cannot 
be  proved  so,  until  the  relative  positions  of  the 
man  and  the  compulsion  shall  have  been  satisfac- 
torily ascertained. 

EPITHET. 

Many  men  who  are  well  educated,  and  many 
who  are  not,so,  strangely  misunderstand  this  word. 
The  shortest  way  to  deal  with  it,  is  to  refer  to  a 
dictionary.  Worcester  says, 

"Epithet,  an  adjective  denoting  any  quality, 
good  or  bad ;  a  term  expressing  an  attribute  or 
quality." 


MISUSED   WORDS.  49 

That  is  to  say,  no  part  of  speech  other  than  an 
adjective  is  an  epithet,  and  the  import  of  an  epithet 
is  either  good  or  bad. 

Yet  a  large  portion  of  all  those  persons,  who 
speak  or  write  the  English  language,  would  call 
the  words  coivard,  thief,  villain,  fool,  scoundrel,  etc., 
etc.,  "  epithets." 

Nor  is  that  all.  Very  few  people  of  a  certain 
class  can  be  made  to  understand,  that  while  adjec- 
tives, only,  are  epithets ;  as  vile,  cowardly,  foolish, 
etc.,  yet  good,  just,  honest,  handsome,  etc.,  are  also 
epithets.  The  popular  impression  is,  that  to  "  ap- 
ply epithets  "  to  a  person,  is  to  vilify  and  insult 
him. 

"  LOOKED   BEAUTIFULLY." 

A  deal  of  argument  has  been  expended  on  the 
question  whether  an  adjective  is  more  proper  than 
an  adverb  in  such  phrases  as  "  the  trees  looked 
magnificently,"  "  the  clouds  looked  splendidly," 
"  the  water  looked  frightfully,"  "  Miss  Smith 
looked  beautifully,"  etc. 

But  there  is  little  room,  or  occasion,  for  argu- 
ment in  the  case.  Whatever  there  is  of  doubt  about 
it,  arises  from  a  misapprehension  of  the  meaning 
of  the  verb  to  look,  in  that  phraseology.  It  there 
has  its  strictly  neuter  meaning  of  seeming. 

As  there  used,  it  does  not  mean  the  act  of  look- 
ing with  the  eye,  but  the  fact  of  appearing  to  the 
eye  :  and  all  question  about  the  accuracy  of  the 
phrases  will  disappear  the  moment  the  right  mean- 
ing is  made  plain  by  a  substituted  word. 


50  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

The  speaker,  in  such  cases,  means  that  the  per- 
sons, or  things,  spoken  of  are,  or  seem,  or  appear 
magnificent,  beautiful,  etc.  No  one  would  think 
of  saying  that  "  the  clouds  are  magnificently" 

It  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to  add  that  adverbs 
refer  to,  or  qualify,  what  a  person  or  thing  does  ; 
and  adjectives,  what  a  person  or  thing  is,  or  seems 
to  be. 

AT  LENGTH. 

The  phrase  at  length  is  often  used  in  the  place  of 
at  last,  but  that  is  not  its  meaning. 

"  I  have  heard  from  my  friend  at  length,"  means 
that  I  have  heard  fully  and  in  detail :  a  long  state- 
ment, or  letter. 

To  hear  from  him  at  last,  is  to  hear  from  him 
after  a  long  delay. 

DISTINGUISH       DISCRIMINATE. 

"  Distinguish  "  is  often  used  for  "  discriminate  " ; 
as,  "  I  could  not  distinguish  between  them." 

There  is  a  great  array  of  precedent  for  this  ;  but 
any  one  who  is  sensitive  to  niceties  in  language 
must  see  the  advantage  of  discriminating  between 
the  two  words. 

"Distinguish"  has  other  and  distinct  meanings; 
and  its  force  as  to  them  is  weakened  by  the  impo- 
sing on  it  of  too  many  duties.  The  fact,  that "  dis- 
criminate "  retains  its  originally  limited  significa- 
tion, shows  the  advantages  of  such  retention,  and 
should  be  a  hint  to  those  persons  who  are  addicted 
to  seeking  substitutes. 


MISUSED  WORDS.  51 

CURIOUS. 

A  correspondent  of  the  London  Athenceum, 
March,  1866,  says  :  — 

"  By  newspaper  writers,  and  even  by  those  who 
may  be  looked  upon  as  authorities,  this  word  is 
now  employed  as  quite  equivalent  to  strange  or 
remarkable. 

"  Nothing  is  more  common  than  to  read  in  the 
daily  prints  of  curious  coincidences.  On  every 
page,  we  meet  with  some  paragraphs  beginning,  it 
is  a  curious  fact.  Or,  we  may  even  read  such  a 
sentence  as  this  :  The  Emperor  himself  was  pres- 
ent, but,  curiously  enough,  he  asked  no  questions  ! 

"  This  use  of  the  word  is  at  once  novel  and 
absurd ;  and,  I  cannot  but  think,  unknown  in  the 
writings  of  every  good  author.  The  word,  as  it 
has  hitherto  been  employed  by  correct  writers,  has 
two  meanings,  akin  to  each  other,  differing  a  little, 
but  both  very  distinct  from  that  of  strange,  or  ex- 
traordinary. 

"  It  was  primarily  applied  only  to  persons,  bear- 
ing the  meaning  of  prying  or  inquisitive;  only  cu- ' 
rious,  unlike  those  words,  does  not  imply  anything 
of  moral  blame.  Curious  men  (more  usually,  the 
curious),  as  Addison  wrote  of  them,  were  simply 
those  who  intermeddled  with  all  knowledge. 

"  But  it  is  also,  with  sufficient  sanction,  applied 
to  things.  When  so  applied,  it  means  very  nice, 
or  intricate  ;  e.  g.  an  elaborate,  delicate  piece  of 
stone  or  ivory  work  might  be  described  as  curiously 
carved. 


52  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

««  To  use  the  word  otherwise  than  in  these  senses 
is  a  wilful  abuse  of  language.  We  have  remarka- 
ble, strange,  queer,  and  a  host  of  other  words  per- 
fectly fitted  to  fill  the  place,  into  which  so  many 
people  are  trying  to  push  poor  curious" 

PECULIAR. 

"  Peculiar  "  and  "  peculiarly  "  have  nearly  lost 
their  force  and  their  peculiarity  of  signification,  by 
having  become  used  interchangeably  with  extreme- 
ly, intensely,  superlatively,  etc. ;  although  the  noun, 
peculiarity,  substantially  holds  its  original  position. 
In  this  case,  as  in  the  case  of  "  distinguish,"  they 
lose  much  of  the  force  of  their  precision,  by  being 
perverted  from  their  strict  sense. 

MOST. 

Everybody  abuses  this  word.  At  least,  nobody, 
with  less  patience  and  perseverance  than  Diogenes, 
can  find  an  author  who  is  innocent  of  such  abuse. 

Most  is  the  superlative  of  much ;  and  also,  sec- 
ondarily, of  many ;  but,  as  to  many  other  English 
words,  usage  has  given  it  a  third  duty  to  perform 
and  a  second  and  subordinate  sense  to  carry ;  which 
duty  it  performs  indifferently,  and  not  without  in- 
jury to  itself:  for  the  perversion  detracts  from  its 
original  force.  This  secondary  sense  is  nearly,  if 
not  exactly,  the  equivalent  of  very,  a  word  that  falls 
entirely  short  of  being  superlative;  and  the  con 
stant  use  of  "most"  in  that  sense  necessarily 
weakens  its  force  in  any  sense. 


MISUSED  WORDS.  53 

Indeed,  that  effect  directly  follows  that  cause; 
as  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  good  writers  have,  for  a 
century  or  two,  fallen  into  a  habit  of  using  "  most " 
in  its  original  and  superlative  sense,  yet  applying 
it  to  adjectives  or  adverbs  that  are  already,  either 
technically  or  intrinsically,  superlative  of  them- 
selves ;  or,  they  prefix  it  to  a  verb  that  expresses 
superlative  action :  either  of  which  uses  is  tauto- 
logical, superfluous,  and  impertinent.  These  re- 
marks will  be  best  illustrated  by  citations,  in  some 
of  which  the  word  is  used  in  its  primary,  and  in 
others  in  its  secondary,  sense. 

MILTON  says, 

"  If  what  is  urged 

Main  reason  to  persuade  immediate  war 
Did  not  dissuade  me  most,  and  seein  to  cast 
Ominous  conjecture  on  the  whole  success ; 
When  he  who  most  excels  in  fact  of  arms, 
In  what  he  counsels  and  in  what  excels,"  etc. 

SHAKESPEAEE  says, 

"  Most  potent,  grave,  and  reverend  seignors, 
My  very  noble  and  approved  good  masters, 
That  I  have  ta'en  away  this  old  man's  daughter, 
It  is  most  true;  true,  I  have  married  her,"  etc 

JOHNSON  says, 

"  It  is  the  sage  advice  of  Epictetus  that  a  man 
should  accustom  himself  often  to  think  of  what  is 
most  shocking  and  terrible,  that,  by  such  reflec- 
tions, he  may  be  preserved  from,"  etc. 

ADDISON  says, 

"  I  had  not  been  long  at  the  university  before  1 
distinguished  myself  by  a  most  profound  silence." 


54  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

HORACE  WALPOLE  says, 

"I  have  considered  your  suggestions  as  to  so 
and  so ;  it  is  a  most  just  idea." 

BURKE  says, 

"  If  this  system  has  so  ill  answered  its  own  grand 
^retence  of  saving  the  king  from  employing  persons 
disagreeable  to  him,  has  it  given  more  peace  and 
tranquillity  to  his  majesty's  private  hours  ?  No, 
most  certainly." 

CHESTERFIELD  says, 

"  He  was  a  most  complete  orator  and  debater  in 
the  House  of  Commons." 

LITTLETON  says, 

"  This  was  most  extraordinary  virtue  in  one  who 
has  lived  amid  all  the  license  of  camps,"  etc. 

SMOLLETT  says, 

"  He  was  doubtless  an  object  of  most  perfect  es- 
teem and  admiration,"  etc. 

GOLDSMITH  says, 

"  Yet,  even  in  these,  the  reader's  memory  may 
possibly  suggest  the  names  of  some,  whose  works, 
still  preserved,  discover  a  most  extensive  erudi- 
tion." 

WASHINGTON  IRVING  says, 

"His  affections  were  so  social  and  generous, 
that  when  he  had  money,  he  gave  it  most  liberally 
away." 

PRESCOTT  says, 

"  If  I  have  reserved  his  name  for  the  last,  in  the 
list  of  those  to  whose  good  offices  I  am  indebted,  it 
is,  most  assuredly,  not  because  I  value  his  services 
least." 


MISUSED   WORDS.  55 

DANIEL  WEBSTER  says, 

"  But,  soon  afterward,  having  reason  to  suspect 
that  Columbia  and  Mexico  were  preparing  to  at- 
tack Cuba,  and  knowing  that  such  an  event  would 
most  seriously  affect  us,"  etc. 

EDWARD  EVERETT  says, 

"  It  requires  little  argument  to  show,  that  such  a 
system  must  most  widely  and  most  powerfully  have 
the  effect  of  appealing  to  whatever  of  energy  the 
land  contains." 

Here  follow  certain  random  selections  from  the 
newspapers :  — 

"  Though  the  effort  be  earnest,  the  coin  is  base, 
and  it  is  most  effectually  nailed  to  the  counter  in 
the  short  article  we  have,"  etc. 

"  We  will  not  say  that  Paulding  has  no  faults  as 
a  writer ;  but  it  is  most  undeniable  that,  for  every 
one  of  his  faults,  a  careful  critic  might  produce," 
etc. 

"  The  brilliancy  of  Andrew  Jackson's  military 
career  is  most  unalterably  certified  by,"  etc. 

"  It  is  a  most  melancholy  and  most  unaccountable 
fact,  that  some  hundreds  of  deluded  individuals 
have  given  in  their  adherence,"  etc. 

"  He  began  in  early  life  as  a  writer ;  and,  after 
forty  years'  labor,  he  accomplished  a  most  extensive 
and  valuable  collection,"  etc. 

"  This  picture  is  a  real  gem,  and  a  most  undoubted 
original." 

It  is  needless  to  prolong  this  list  of  quotations. 
They  might  be  extended  to  many  thousands.  But 


56  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

what  is  worthy  of  special  notice  is  the  fact  that 
they  are  not  selected  from  others  in  any  one  work 
of  their  authors.  In  each  instance,  the  first  most 
that  was  found  in  a  volume  is  the  one  here  quoted. 
And  yet,  the  reader  will  see  that,  in  almost  every 
case,  the  sentence  would  be  improved  by  the  omis- 
sion of  the  word  most. 

The  passages  from  Milton  and  Shakespeare,  being 
poetry,  could  not  be  so  abridged,  unless  another 
word  were  substituted ;  but  that  fact  is  immaterial 
to  the  argument. 

What  is  true  of  the  foregoing  extracts  is  equally 
true  of  the  pages  of  English  literature  generally. 
That  is  to  say,  if  a  man  would  cross  out  "  most " 
wherever  he  can  find  it  in  any  book  in  the  English 
language,  he  would  in  almost  every  instance  im- 
prove the  sty'e  of  the  book. 

And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  good  writers  had,  in 
time  past,  adhered  to  the  conservative  principle  of 
avoiding  the  free  use  of  certain  words  in  a  second- 
ary sense,  they  would  have  done  much  toward  pre- 
serving the  precision  of  our  language. 

THE  REVEREND. 

The  omission  of  the  definite  article  before  the 
words  "  honourable  "  and  "  reverend,"  when  one 
speaks  of  persons  entitled  to  those  epithets,  has 
become  very  common  of  late;  but  the  author  of 
this  book  is  not  aware  of  anybody's  having  assigned 
a  reason  for  the  omission.  Its  propriety  may  be 
tried  by  the  process  of  illustration.  Admit,  for  the 


MISUSED   WORDS.  57 

sake  of  argument,  that  adjectives  do  not,  when  so 
used,  require  the  article,  or  any  prefixed  word ;  and 
then  see  how  its  omission  affects  this  paragraph :  — 
At  last  annual  meeting  of  Blank  Book  Society, 
honourable  John  Smith  took  the  chair,  assisted  by 
reverend  John  Brown  and  venerable  John  White. 
The  office  of  secretary  would  have  been  filled  by 
late  John  Green,  but  for  his  decease,  which  ren- 
dered him  ineligible.  His  place  was  supplied  by 
inevitable  John  Black.  In  the  course  of  the  even- 
ing, eulogiums  were  pronounced  on  distinguished 
John  Gray,  and  notorious  Joseph  Brown.  Marked 
compliment  was  also  paid  to  able  historian  Joseph 
White,  discriminating  philosopher  Joseph  Green, 
and  learned  professor  Joseph  Black.  But  conspicu- 
ous speech  of  the  evening  was  witty  Joseph  Gray's 
apostrophe  to  eminent  astronomer  Jacob  Brown, 
subtle  logician  Jacob  White,  and  sound  mathema- 
tician Jacob  Green.  His  reference  to  learned  Jacob 
Black  was  a  brilliant  hit.  Profound  metaphysician 
Jacob  Gray  was  not  forgotten,  and  indefatigable 
traveller  Peter  Brown  was  remembered  by  a  good 
anecdote.  Clever  artist  Peter  Gray  was,  in  fact, 
only  celebrity  omitted. 

THE   BOOK   GENESIS. 

The  omission  of  the  preposition  of,  which  has 
recently  been  practised  in  the  American  pulpit,  is 
thus  treated  by  Dean  Alford  in  the  "  Queen's  Eng- 
lish," in  reference  to  the  Queen's  clergymen  :  — 

"  There  is  a  piece  of  affectation  becoming  sadly 

3* 


58  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

common  among  our  younger  clergy ;  namely,  the 
omission  of  of  in  proclaiming  from  the  desk  Here 
beginneth  the  first  chapter  of  the  book  Genesis,  etc. 

"  I  believe  the  excuse,  if  it  can  be  called  one,  set 
up  for  this  violation  of  usage  is,  that  the  Book  of 
Genesis  and  the  Book  of  Daniel  cannot  both  be 
right,  because  the  former  was  not  written  by 
Genesis,  as  the  latter  was  by  Daniel.  But  this 
simply  betrays  ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  the 
preposition  of.  It  is  used  to  denote  authorship; 
as  the  Book  of  Daniel :  to  denote  subject-matter ; 
as  the  First  Book  of  Kings :  and  as  a  note  of  ap- 
position signifying  which  is  called;  as  the  book  of 
Genesis,  of  Exodus,  etc. 

"  The  pedant,  who  ignores  of  in  the  reading-desk, 
must  however,  to  be  consistent,  omit  it  elsewhere : 
I  left  the  city  London,  and  passed  through  county 
Kent,  leaving  realm  England  at  town  Dover"  etc. 

WIDOW  LADY. 

Widow-Zae?«/  and  widow-wowzrtn  are  frequently 
encountered  in  conversation  and  in  print.  But 
whether  either  of  them  has  yet  been  encountered 
by  a  widower-^en^emaw  or  a  widower-wan,  remains 
to  be  discovered. 

ONE. 

One,  when  used  as  a  pronoun  in  the  singular 
number,  is  a  very  convenient  and  useful  word ; 
as, 

"Two  opportunities  presented  themselves,  and 
he,  fortunately,  chose  the  right  one. 


MISUSED  WORDS.  59 

•*  There  were  several  swords  on  the  table,  but  I 
had  the  luck  to  take  the  best  one  of  all." 

But  when  the  word  is  used  in  the  plural,  although 
such  use  is  grammatically  correct,  the  effect  is  gro- 
tesque ;  as, 

"  Of  the  books  he  sent,  I  found  three  very  good 
ones,  but  the  remainder  were  particularly  dull." 

Omit  the  "very  good"  in  the  first  branch  of  that 
sentence,  and  the  odd  expression,  three  ones,  re- 
mains. 

BUT    THAT. 

But  that,  when  the  two  words  are  used  together 
and  each  is  used  as  a  conjunction,  seems  to  be  a 
favorite  combination  with  some  writers  ;  and  good 
writers  do  not  always  escape  it. 

The  phrase  is  bad  enough  in  itself;  and  is  worse 
in  view  of  its  consequence  ;  namely,  the  misleading 
of  other  people  into  the  lower  vulgarism  of  but 
what;  as  in  the  genial  reply  of  Mr.  JoUing  (ne 
Weevle)  of  Bleak  Hoiise  :  — 

"  Thank  you,  Guppy,  I  don't  know  but  what  I 
will  take  a  marrow  pudding." 

The  Joblings  of  society  must  of  course  be  left 
where  Dickens  places  them ;  but  it  is  desirable  for 
educated  men  to  set  a  better  example  than  SOUTHEY 
did,  when  he  wrote, 

"  There  can  be  no  question  but  that  both  the  lan- 
guage and  the  characters  are  Hebrew." 

And  even  that  is  not  quite  so  bad  as  a  line  of 
TRENCH,  in  his  book  on  this  very  subject  of  good 
English,  —  "  English  Past  and  Present " :  — 


60  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

« He  never  doubts  but  that  he  knows  their  inten- 
tions " ; 

because  SOUTHEY  was  writing  a  work  of  fiction, — 
"The  Doctor,"  —  and  was  not  necessarily  on  his 
guard :  "  not  but  what  he  should  have  been,"  how 
ever,  as  Mr.  Jobling  might  say. 

THAT,   IN  THAT,   ETC. 

Many  writers  have  a  habit  of  omitting  "  that," 
from  what  would  seem  to  be  a  propensity  to  over- 
neatness  of  style ;  or,  it  may  be  omitted  through 
carelessness.  The  omission  makes  a  sentence  both 
inaccurate  and  inelegant.  Precision  is  always  an 
element  of  a  finished  style.  These  are  instances 
of  the  omission  :  — 

"  It  was  a  long  time  before  I  ascertained  [that] 
I  had  lost  the  book."  "  We  all  know  [that]  his- 
tory constantly  reproduces  itself."  "He  assured 
me  [that]  the  fact  was  otherwise."  "  Those  who 
are  competent  to  judge  say  [that]  he  will  never 
succeed."  And  so  on,  indefinitely. 

Again,  "  that"  is  frequently  used  by  some  good, 
and  by  all  poor,  writers  in  a  phrase  that  is  only  one 
remove  from  slang.  Even  Trench  uses  it.  He  says 
("  English  Past  and  Present ")  :  "  It  is  undoubted- 
ly becoming  different  from  what  it  has  been,  but 
only  different  [this  should  be  different  only]  in  that 
it  is  passing  into  another  stage  of  its  development." 

Here  in  that  means  nothing  less  than  in  this  re- 
spect, that,  which  is  a  very  unreasonable  burden  for 
so  short  a  word  —  to  say  nothing  of  the  vulgarism 


MISUSED  WORDS.  61 

of  the  phrase.  It  is  making  "that"  do  double 
duty,  —  as  a  pronoun  and  a  conjunction. 

Trench  also  says,  in  the  same  volume,  "  I  cannot 
think  but  that  this  is  stated  too  strongly."  Which 
is  not  only,  as  Polonius  says,  "  a  vile  phrase,"  but 
it  fails  to  express  the  meaning  of  the  writer.  He 
means,  " I  cannot  but  think  that"  etc.  In  other 
words,  he  says  he  cannot  think,  and  he  means  he 
cannot  help  thinking. 

It  is  not  overstating  the  case  to  say  that  Dean 
Trench,  while  he  is  beyond  question  a  writer  of 
general  elegance  and  force,  is  frequently  guilty  of 
extreme  carelessness,  —  which,  in  books  of  philo- 
logical criticism,  is  hardly  to  be  excused.  In  addi- 
tion to  his  already-cited  blunders,  here  is  a  sentence 
which,  within  the  compass  of  fifteen  lines,  contains 
four  blunders,  —  namely,  two  errors  and  two  inele- 
gancies :  "It  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  but 
as  a  riddle  which  no  one  has  succeeded  in  solving. 
....  Had  they  had  their  rise  first  in  books,  then 
it  would  be  easily  traced  ;  had  it  been  from  the 
schools  of  the  learned,  these  would  not  have  failed 
to  have  left  a  recognizable  stamp  and  mark  upon 
them." 

The  "  but "  should  be  than;  the  "  then  "  should 
be  omitted ;  and  "  have  left "  should  be  leave. 

IN  so  FAK  AS. 

This  is  a  variation  of  "in  that" ;  the  chief  dif- 
ference between  the  two  being  that,  while  one  of  the 
phrases  has  too  few  words,  the  other  has  too  many. 


62  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

As  to  frequency  of  use,  they  are  nearly  equal.  These 
are  instances :  — 

"  We  are  to  act  up  to  the  extent  of  our  knowl- 
edge ;  but,  in  so  far  as  our  knowledge  falls  short," 
etc. 

"  A  want  of  proper  opportunity  would  suffice,  in 
so  far  as  the  want  could  be  shown." 

It  seems  strange  that  so  clumsy  a  phrase  could 
get  into  use,  when  the  proper  phrase  is  so  familiar 
and  simple ;  but  so  it  is  that  men  will  cumber  them- 
selves about  many  things  when  but  few  things  are 
needed.  The  in  of  the  phrase  in  question  is  worse 
than  superfluous.  It  might  with  equal  propriety 
be  added  to  this,  or  any  similar,  sentence :  — 

"  He  was  much  emaciated,  in  so  much  so,  indeed, 
that  no  one  recognized  him  " ;  or,  "  she  is  beautiful, 
in  so  beautiful,  that  every  man  falls  in  love  with 
her." 

CORRESPOND. 

The  verb  to  correspond  has  two  meanings :  one, 
to  be  adapted  to,  or  appropriate  to,  etc.,  when  it  al- 
ways requires  the  preposition  to  after  it ;  as, 

"  His  style  of  living  corresponded  to  his  means  " ; 

"The  style  of  its  architecture  corresponded  to 
the  size  of  the  square  "  ; 

and  the  other,  to  hold,  or  have,  intercourse  by  let- 
ters ;  in  which  sense  it  requires  the  preposition 
with;  as, 

"  I  have  corresponded  with  him  for  years." 

But  the  majority  of  writers,  good  and  bad,  use 
with  in  both  cases. 


MISUSED   WORDS.  63 

WITHOUT. 

Almost  everybody  uses  this  word  as  the  synonyme 
of  unless :  "  I  would  not  do  it  without  he  consented," 
and  so  on.  But  such  a  use  of  the  word  is  entirely 
unjustifiable. 

STOPPING. 

It  is  a  matter  of  almost  daily  experience  to  find 
in  the  newspapers  sentences  like  this,  — 

"  General  Grant  and  his  family  have  arrived  in 
town,  and  are  stopping  at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel." 

On  reading  such  an  announcement,  one  is  tempt- 
ed to  inquire,  — 

"  When  will  General  Grant  stop  «  stopping '  ? " 

Stopping  is  not  a  continuous  process,  like  going, 
living,  etc.  To  stop  is  to  do  a  single  act  that  ter- 
minates the  prior  action.  The  act  may  be  repeat- 
ed, but  it  cannot  be  continued.* 

PEN. 

Bulwer,  in  his  play  of  Richelieu,  had  the  good 
fortune  to  do,  what  few  men  can  hope  to  do :  he 
wrote  a  line  that  is  likely  to  live  for  ages.  The 
great  Cardinal  says, 

"  Beneath  the  rule  of  men  entirely  great, 
The  pen  is  migldier  than  the  sword." 

That,  however,  was  written  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury ago,  when  the  full  power  of  the  pen  was  not 
developed.  Were  Bulwer  to  write  his  play  now, 

*  The  man  who  did  not  invite  his  (so-called)  friend  to  visit  him, 
understood  the  meaning  of  words  when  he  said,  "  If  you  come,  at 
any  time,  within  ten  miles  of  my  house,  just  stop." 


64  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

with  the  light  which  the  gentlemen  of  the  newspa- 
pers have  thrown  on  the  subject,  he  would  proba- 
bly change  his  immortal  line  to, 

"  The  pen  is  mightier  than  the  man" 

Because,  when  Bulwer  wrote  that  play,  he  did 
write  it ;  whereas  the  present  newspaper  account 
of  the  transaction  would  be  that  "  The  new  play 
of  Richelieu  is  attributed  to  the  pen  of  Bulwer." 

OP  ALL   OTHERS. 

Criticism  has  almost  exhausted  itself  in  exhibit- 
ing the  absurdity  of  this  phrase :  but  nobody  gives 
heed  to  the  criticisms.  Like  "  our  mutual  friend," 
the  more  it  is  criticised,  the  more  people  use 
it.  Books,  newspapers,  and  conversation  overflow 
with  it. 

It  is  forced  into  all  varieties  of  sentences,  of 
which  any  one  or  two  will  suffice  as  examples  :  — 

"  That  style  of  warfare  is,  of  all  others,  the  most 
barbarous." 

"  A  stain  of  all  others  the  most  difficult  to  ex- 
punge." 

How  one  thing  can  be  of  other  things,  is  the  ques- 
tion. One  thing  can  be  above  other  things,  but  it 
cannot  be  of  them.  A  thing  can  be  of  all  things, 
the  most;  or,  of  all  things,  the  richest,  etc.,  or,  of 
a  class,  the  best ;  but  the  introduction  of  "  others  " 
into  the  phrases  in  question  excludes  from  the 
"  class,"  or  from  the  "  all,"  the  very  thing  named. 

The  two  sentences  above  quoted  should  be 
changed  by  the  substitution  of  above  for  "  of"  ;  or, 


MISUSED   WORDS.  65 

by  changing  "  others  "  to  styles  and  stains,  respec- 
tively. 

A   HEARTY  MEAL. 

This  phrase  is  appropriated  chiefly  by  the  nov- 
elists ;  who,  alone,  have  much  occasion  for  it. 
Dickens  "  seriously  inclines  "  to  it,  although  gen- 
erally he  writes  the  purest  English  of  the  whole 
fraternity ;  always  excepting  Anthony  Trollope, 
and  the  anonymous  author  of  a  recently  published 
story  called  "  Tony  Butler."  Tony  Butler  is  the 
work  of  a  master,  whoever  he  may  be. 

As  to  the  "  hearty  meal,"  it  is,  no  doubt,  very 
acceptable  to  the  personage  in  the  book  who  eats 
it ;  it  is  doubtless  "  quite  to  his  taste  "  ;  but  pre- 
serve us  from  the  taste  of  the  man  who  writes  it ! 

IN  OUR  MIDST. 

This  is  a  common  phrase  in  sermons,  homilies, 
and  religious  newspapers ;  and  it  is  not  uncommon 
elsewhere. 

Quaint  forms  of  expression,  in  the  treating  of  re- 
ligious and  moral  subjects,  have  become  familiar, 
and  are  felt  to  be  appropriate,  because  our  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible  is  full  of  them.  But  quaintness 
must  not  take  the  place  of  accuracy  in  language  :  be- 
sides, though  the  phrase  in  question  may  be  traced 
to  the  Bible,  it  cannot  be  found  in  the  Bible. 

Midst  means,  simply,  middle,  and  it  means  noth- 
ing else  ;  hence,  "  in  our  midst  "  is  no  better  than 
in  our  middle. 

Again, "  midst  "  is  not  an  absolute,  or  indepen- 


66  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

dent,  term.  It  must  be  used  in  connection  with 
some  other  word,  or  preceded  by  the  definite  ar- 
ticle ;  indeed,  the  article  is  indispensable.  We 
have  "  in  the  midst "  in  the  Bible,  midst  being 
there  used  as  one  of  the  parts  of  a  locality,  previ- 
ously indicated.  But  the  more  usual  form  of  its 
correct  use  requires  not  only  the  definite  article 
before  it,  but  the  preposition  of  after  it ;  as,  in  the 
midst  of  a  storm,  or  the  confusion,  or  the  discus- 
sion, etc. 

Webster's  last  Dictionary  has  the  following  com- 
ments :  — 

"  The  phrase  in  our  midst  has,  unhappily,  gained 
great  currency  in  this  country,  and  it  is  sometimes, 
though  rarely,  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  re- 
spectable English  authors.  The  expression  seems 
contrary  to  the  genius  of  the  language,  as  well  as 
opposed  to  the  practice  of  our  best  and  most  accu- 
rate writers,  and  should  therefore  be  abandoned." 

Moreover,  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  advocates  of  a 
phrase  must  abide  its  consequences.  If  "  in  our 
midst "  is  tolerated,  who  can  prevent  the  next  step 
in  the  innovation  ;  namely,  "  our  little  midst "  ? 

YOU  ARE  MISTAKEN. 

This  phrase,  as  popularly  used,  is  one  of  the 
most  widely  disseminated  of  philological  errors. 

The  verb  to  mistake  is  a  compound  of  mis  and 
take;  and  it  means  simply  to  take  amiss,  to  take 
erroneously. 

The  "  take  "  of  the  combination  has  two  signifi- 


MISUSED   WOEDS.  67 

cations,  —  taking  physically  and  taking  mentally  ; 
that  is,  to  take  by  or  with  the  hand,  and  by  or 
with  the  mind.  The  word  mistake  is  seldom, 
perhaps  never,  used  in  the  former  sense.  In  the 
latter  sense,  it  may  be  denned  by  the  verbs  mis- 
judge, misconceive,  misapprehend,  misunderstand. 

Therefore,  to  say  that  a  person  mistakes  the  facts 
of  a  case,  or  the  acts,  opinions,  intentions,  or  words 
of  another  person,  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he 
misjudges,  misconceives,  misapprehends,  or  misun- 
derstands them. 

And,  on  the  other  hand,  to  say  "  you  are  mis- 
taken," in  regard  to  the  acts,  facts,  opinions,  etc., 
is  equivalent  to  saying  you  are  misjudged,  mis- 
conceived, misapprehended,  misunderstood,  there- 
about. 

But,  as  the  phrase  is  commonly  used,  that  is  ex- 
actly what  the  speaker  does  not  mean.  He  intends 
to  tell  his  friend  that  he  (the  friend)  is  wrong,  or 
in  error  ;  but  he  says  that  he  is  himself  in  error. 

For  example,  A  says  to  B,  "  The  Central  Park  is 
ten  miles  long."  B  replies,  "  You  are  mistaken  ; 
it  is  only  three  miles  long." 

In  that  case,  A  is  not  mistaken,  because  he  is  not 
misunderstood  by  B.  He  mistook  the  fact,  and  that 
is  what  B  should  have  said,  —  "  You  mistake." 

Again,  A  says  to  B,  "  Dr.  Brown  has  become 
unsound  in  his  theology  ;  he  said  so  and  so."  B 
replies,  "You  are  mistaken  ;  he  said  so  and  so." 

Here  again  A  is  not  mistaken ;  he  mistook,  he 
misapprehended,  etc.,  the  Doctor's  words  or  his 
meaning. 


68  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Iii  short,  whenever  A  wishes  to  tell  B  that  he  is 
wrong,  or  in  error,  in  a  remark  like  those  here 
cited,  he  should  say  "you  mistake,"  or  "you  are 
wrong,"  and  not  "  you  are  mistaken." 

As  to  the  noun,  "  mistake."  Analogically,  a 
mistake  seems  to  be  little  better  than  a  misjudge,  a 
misconceive,  &  misapprehend,  a  misunderstand;  and 
quite  as  bad  as  an  undertake,  or  an  overtake.  And 
those  words,  ridiculous  as  they  appear,  need  not  be 
scouted  as  impossible  applicants  for  admission  into 
the  language;  so  long  as  everybody  knows  that, 
among  ignorant  people,  "  a  recommend  "  is  a  com- 
mon substitute  for  a  recommendation;  and  "  an  in- 
vite," for  an  invitation.  Furthermore,  we  have  the 
exact  equivalent  of  "  recommend  "  and  "  invite," 
already  adopted  and  in  daily  use  in  one  of  the 
"  learned  professions."  Hardly  a  case  is  tried  in 
our  courts  of  law,  in  the  progress  of  which  trial  pa- 
pers are  not  introduced  that  are  called  and  marked 
"  exhibits"  And-  our  custom-house  daily  grants 
its  "permits"  for  the  discharge  of  merchandise 
from  vessels  and  warehouses. 

Hence,  as  most  of  our  philological  vulgarisms 
originate  with  illiterate  people,  and  gradually  rise 
in  the  popular  current  witil,  at  last,  they  are  adopt- 
ed by  good  writers,  —  a  recommend,  an  invite,  an 
overtake,  and  any  other  words,  may  become  good 
English,  on  the  theory  that  usage  is  the  end  of  the 
law.  Besides,  there  is  this  additional  difficulty 
about  the  noun  mistake,  when  used  as  the  equiva- 
lent of  an  error,  —  that  it  tends  strongly  toward 
sanctioning  the  misuse  of  the  verb,  as  already  dis- 


MISUSED  WORDS.  69 

cussed.  For,  when  we  become  accustomed  to  the 
use  of  "  a  mistake,"  it  seems  inconsistent  to  deny 
that  "  you  are  mistaken  "  and  "  you  are  in  error  " 
are  interchangeable  terms. 

When  one  has  in  mind  the  true  meaning  of  the 
verb,  what  a  confusing  jumble  of  thought  ensues 
from  hearing  the  phrase,  "  You  made  a  mistake" 
—  as  if  one  should  say,  "  You  made  a  misunder- 
stand!" 

However,  these  comments  on  the  noun  mistake 
are  intended  to  be  speculative,  rather  than  critical ; 
for  whether  the  noun  is  well  or  ill  formed,  and 
whether  or  not  its  use  tends  to  accredit  the  verb  in 
a  wrong  sense,  neither  its  formation  nor  its  use 
can  now  be  disturbed.  The  word  is  too  firmly 
rooted  in  the  language,  to  be  subject  to  serious 
criticism. 

COMPARATIVE   ADJECTIVES. 

Comparative  adjectives,  as  wiser,  better,  larger, 
etc.,  etc.,  and  also  the  contrasting  adjectives,  differ- 
ent, other,  etc.,  are  very  often  inelegantly  used  by 
being  misplaced ;  as, 

"  That  is  a  much  better  statement  of  the  case 
than  yours." 

"  Yours  is  a  larger  plot  of  ground  than  John's." 

"  This  is  a  different  course  of  proceeding  from 
what  I  expected." 

'"  I  could  take  no  other  method  of  silencing  him 
than  the  one  I  took." 

Those  sentences  should  be  thus  altered  : 

"  That  statement  of  the  case  is  much  letter  than 
yours." 


70  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

"  Your  plot  of  ground  is  larger  than  John's." 

"That  course  of  proceeding  is  different  from 
what  I  expected." 

"  I  could  take  no  method  of  silencing  him,  other 
than  the  one  I  took." 

The  fault,  in  such  cases,  is  a  fault  of  construc- 
tion, or  position,  —  separating  the  adjective  from 
the  conjunction.  As  a  rule,  they  should  be  brought 
together ;  and  when  the  reader  sees  the  two  forms 
side  by  side,  he  needs  no  argument  to  show  him  the 
advantage  of  bringing  them  together. 

Yery  few  writers  seem  to  understand  this  ;  or, 
at  least,  very  few  writers  take  the  trouble  to  avoid 
the  error  ;  for  the  instances  of  the  error,  in  every 
department  of  literature,  may  be  counted  by  tens 
of  thousands. 

Mr.  Marsh,  in  his  series  of  criticisms  on  Web- 
ster's Dictionary  published  in  The  Nation,  permits 
himself  to  write  the  following  formidable  specimen 
of  this  fault  of  construction  (The,  Nation,  Septem- 
ber 20th)  :  — 

"  In  like  manner,  false  derivations  of  buoy,  cam- 
let, and  hundreds  of  other  words,  are  almost  uni- 
versally adopted,  because  lexicographers  have  found 
it  easier  to  imagine  a  connection  between  vocables 
so  like  each  other  as  boja,  a  fetter  or  chain,  and 
buoy;  camel  and  camlet;  than  to  search  out  the 
actual  history  of  the  derivatives  in  question." 

How  easy  would  it  have  been  for  Mr.  Marsh  to 
say,  —  "  lexicographers  have  found  that  to  imagine 
a  connection is  easier  than  to  search  out,"  etc. 


MISUSED   WORDS.  71 

Mr.  Marsh,  in  the  same  paper,  says,  "  Neither  the 
history,  the  form,  nor  the  meaning  of  a  word,"  — 
thus  applying  "neither"  to  three  objects.  But, 
per  contra,  he  gives,  in  the  same  paragraph,  the 
following  able  and  perspicuous  criticism  on  one  of 
Webster's  etymologies :  — 

"  In  a  dictionary  on  the  plan  of  that  before  us 
there  must  also  be  a  limit  to  the  amount  of  collat- 
eral etymological  illustration,  and  space  is  occu- 
pied which  might  be  better  employed  whenever 
facts  are  stated  which  serve  to  explain  neither  the 
history,  the  form,  nor  the  meaning  of  a  word.  The 
former  editions  of  Webster  were  very  extravagant  in 
this  respect,  and  though  the  revisers  have,  in  most 
cases,  retrenched  such  superfluities,  they  have  some- 
times, from  inadvertence,  no  doubt,  rather  than  de- 
liberate intention,  suffered  them  to  remain.  Thus, 
the  etymology  of  profession  refers  us  to  the  French 
profession,  the  Provencal  professio,  the  Spanish  pro- 
fesion,  the  Italian  professione,  and  the  Latin  profes- 
sio.  Now  the  French  word  is  important,  because  it 
accounts  for  the  form  of  the  English,  the  Latin 
because  it  gives  us  the  proximate  source  of  the 
French  ;  the  other  three  explain  nothing  whatever, 
and  are  of  110  more  use  or  instruction  to  the  Eng- 
lish student  than  totally  unrelated  Russian,  Hun- 
garian, or  Turkish  equivalents  of  the  same  word 
would  be." 

This  is  a  quiet,  but  rather  sharp,  comment  on 
the  former  claim  of  Webster's  publishers,  —  that 
his  dictionary  was  superior  to  all  others  by  reason 


72  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

of,  and  in  proportion  to,  the  voluminousness  of 
its  etymologies. 

THE    INFINITIVE    MOOD. 

The  use  of  a  verb  —  any  verb  —  in  the  past  tense, 
with  an  infinitive  in  the  past  tense,  is  another 
of  the  blunders  that  may  be  found  on  almost  every 
page  of  English  literatiire.  It  is  even  more  com- 
mon than  "  of  all  others";  although,  like  that,  it 
has  been  perseveringly  criticised  for  many  years. 

JOHNSON  says, 

"  Had  this  been  the  fate  of  Tasso,  he  would  have 
been  able  to  have  celebrated  the  condescension  of 
your  majesty  in  noble  language." 

SOUTHEY  says, 

"  Gray  might  perhaps  have  been  able  to  have  ren- 
dered him  more  temperate  in  his  political  views." 

WILSON  says, 

"  Byron's  modesty  was  shocked  at  the  sight  of 
waltzing,  which  he  would  not  have  suffered  the 
Guiccioli  to  have  indulged  in,  even  with  her  own 
husband." 

JEFFREY  says, 

"  Swift,  but  a  few  months  before,  was  willing  to 
have  hazarded  all  the  horrors  of  civil  war." 

ALISON  says, 

"  It  was  expected  that  Ms  first  act  would  have  leen 
to  have  sent  for  Lords  Grey  and  Grenville."  * 

TRENCH  says, 

"  Those  who  would  gladly  have  seen  the  Anglo 

*  This  sentence  contains  a  double  blunder :  but  that  is  nothing 
uncommon  for  Alison. 


MISUSED  WORDS.  73 

Saxon  to  have  predominated  over  the  Latin  element 
in  our  language." 

The  infinitives  in  the  foregoing  quotations  should 
be,  severally,  to  celebrate,  to  render.,  to  indulge,  to  haz- 
ard, would  be  to  send;  while  Trench's  sentence 
should  be,  "  the  Anglo-Saxon  predominate" 

When  such  writers  set  such  examples,  who  can 
wonder  that  all  subsequent  writers  follow  them  ? 

The  present  infinitive,  though  often  misused, 
is  so  used  much  less  frequently  than  the  past.  Be- 
sides, the  error  can  be  much  more  briefly  explained. 

The  present  infinitive  consists  of  the  particle  to 
and  the  verb ;  as,  to  speak.  But,  grammatically, 
the  particle  is  a  part  of  the  verb,  and  a  part  in- 
separable from  it,  as  much  so  as  is  any  other  mere 
prefix.  Indeed,  as  much  so  as  a  prefixed  syllable 
that  makes  a  compound  word,  as  in  and  separable, 
in  the  word  inseparable.  But  some  person  who 
happened  to  hear,  or  see,  a  forcible  expression 
made  by  placing  an  adverb  between  an  auxiliary 
and  its  principal  verb  —  which  is  a  very  different 
case  from  this  case  —  wished,  probably,  to  do  like- 
wise with  the  infinitive ;  and  he  placed  his  adverb 
between  the  particle  and  the  verb.  An  abundance 
of  followers  was  found  "  to  immediately  imitate  " 
the  preposterous  example,  which  is  as  notable  for 
its  pedantry  as  for  its  ignorance. 

SHOULD   HAVE  REGRETTED   HIS   HAVING  BEEN,  ETC. 

Akin  to  this  use  of  the  past,  for  the  present,  in- 
finitive, is  a  compound  of  past  tenses  involved  in  a 


74  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

phrase  like  this :  "  I  should  have  regretted  his  hav- 
ing been  killed."  In  this  case,  if  the  speaker  means 
that  he  would  once  have  regretted  what,  for  reasons, 
he  does  not  now  regret,  he  should  say,  "  I  should 
have1  regretted  his  being  killed  " ;  but  if  he  means 
that  he  "  would  now  regret,"  etc.,  he  ought  to  say, 
"  I  should  regret  his  having  been  killed."  In  short, 
one  branch  of  the  sentence  must  refer  to  the  present 
time. 

Trench  says,  in  "English  Past  and  Present," 
"  A  lover  of  his  native  tongue  will  tremble  to  think 
what  that  tongue  would  have  become,  if  all  the 
vocables  from  the  Latin  and  Greek  ....  had  been 
admitted  ....  and  if  ....  had  not  been  rejected" 
etc. 

Obviously,  this  should  be,  "  what  the  tongue 
would  be,  if  so  and  so  had  been" ;  because,  how 
could  a  lover  of  his  native  tongue  tremble  at  a 
danger,  or  an  evil,  that  is  past? 

THE  POSSESSIVE   CASE. 

There  seems  to  be  a  difference  of  opinion,  even 
among  philologists,  about  the  accuracy  of  sentences 
like  these :  — 

"  The  reason  of  the  king  not  giving  his  consent, 
has  at  last  been  divulged." 

"  The  doctor  insisted  on  John  being  bled." 

"  He  would  not  be  satisfied  without  the  major 
throwing  it  away." 

"  The  best  apology  for  the  governor  signing  the 
paper,  is,"  etc. 


MISUSED   WORDS.  75 

Dean  Alford  says  on  this  point :  — 

"  A  correspondent  inquires  respecting  the  correct- 
ness of  such  sentences  as  the  following  :  Day  and 
night  are  a  consequence  *  of  the  earth  revolving  on 
its  axis.  He  maintains  f  that,  here,  revolving  is  a 
verbal  noun,  equivalent  to  revolution;  and  that  we 
ought  to  say,  —  a  consequence  of  the  earth's  revolv- 
ing on  its  axis.  He  believes  he  has  proved  this,  by 
the  test  of  substituting  the  pronoun  for  '  earth ' : 
Day  and  night  are  a  consequence  of  its  revolving 
on  its  axis,  —  where,  he  rightly  says,  no  one  would 
think  of  saying  it  revolving.  At  first  sight,  this 
appears  decisive.  But,  let  us  examine  a  little 

*  One  would  suppose  that  the  Dean  might  as  well  have  rebuked 
his  correspondent  for  writing  "  a  consequence  "  instead  of  conse- 
quences. 

t  This  word  is  of  questionable  propriety  in  the  circumstances. 
A  critic  should  avoid  doubtful  words.  The  primary  meaning  of 
"maintain"  involves  a  successful  upholding,  which  success  the 
Dean  proceeds  in  this  case  to  deny. 

A  man  once  said  to  his  friend,  at  the  end  of  a  discussion,  "I 
maintain  my  opinion,  for  all  that."  "Excuse  me,"  was  the  re- 
joinder ;  "  you  retain  your  opinion." 

Again,  the  Dean  says,  "  the  use  of  here  lies  the  remains  of  has 
teen  justified  by  a  correspondent  on  such  and  such  grounds  " ;  after 
which,  he  proceeds  to  say,  in  the  same  paragraph,  that  "the 
defence  of  his  correspondent  is  unquestionably  wrong.  How,  die: 
could  the  correspondent  have  "justified"  the  phrase? 

It  so  happens,  that  the  Dean  furnishes  a  commentary  on  a  pre- 
cisely similar  misuse  of  a  word,  in  his  paragraph  346.  He  is 
speaking  of  the  misuse  of  sustain.  "  To  sustain  means  to  endure, 
to  bear  up  under;  but  to  sustain  a  bereavement "  —  that  is  the 
phrase  he  criticises  — "  does  not  properly  mean  to  undergo  or 
suffer  a  loss,  but  to  behave  bravely  under  it.  In  the  newspapers, 
however,  'sustain'  comes  in  for  the  happening  to  men  of  all  the 
ills  and  accidents  possible." 


76  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

further.  It  is  somewhat  curious,*  that  in  this  last 
sentence  we  may  leave  out  the  possessive  pronoun 
without  obscuring  the  sense  :  thus,  Our  earth 
enjoys  day  and  night  as  a  consequence  of  revolv- 
ing on  its  axis,"  etc. 

That  is  strange  reasoning.  The  sentence  which 
the  Dean  oifers  as  an  illustration  is  entirely  differ- 
ent from  the  sentence  he  professes  to  illustrate  : 
and  thus,  though  his  sentence  is  correct,  its  correct- 
ness does  not  prove  the  other  incorrect. 

The  test  of  substituting  the  pronoun  is  good. 
The  Dean  says  it  "  at  first  sight  appears  decisive  "  : 
which  is  true.  And,  moreover,  it  is  decisive  at 
first  sight,  and  at  second  sight,  and  at  any  "  sight." 

Does  the  Dean  seriously  mean  to  say  that,  in  a 
given  sentence,  a  noun  does  not  require  the  posses- 
sive case,  when  a  substituted  pronoun  does  require 
it  ?  Do  the  principles  of  grammatical  government 
vary  between  a  noun  and  a  pronoun  ? 

Let  us  look  at  the  four  quoted  sentences  at  the 
beginning  of  this  section  on  the  Possessive  Case ; 
and  reproduce  them  in  the  three  positions,  —  with 
and  without  the  possessive  of  the  noun,  and  with 
the  pronoun :  — 

The  reason  of  the  king  (king's)  (his*)  not  giving 
his  consent  has  at  last  been  divulged ; 

The  doctor  insisted  on  John  (John's)  (his)  being 
bled; 

He  would  not  be  satisfied  without  the  major 
(major's)  (his)  throwing  it  away  ; 

*  See  page  51. 


MISUSED  WORDS.  77 

The  best  apology  for  the  governor  (governor's) 
Qiis)  signing  the  paper,  is,  etc. 

Of  course  in  all  but  the  second  quotation  the  the 
before  the  questionable  noun  must  be  omitted  when 
the  pronoun  is  used. 

Now,  take  the  actual  equivalent  of  the  corre- 
spondent's own  sentence  with  such  variations  as 
shall  try  its  grammar  without  changing  its  syn- 
tax:  — 

Disease  and  death  are  consequences  of  the  man 
neglecting  the  doctor's  advice  ; 

Disease  and  death  are  consequences  of  me  neg- 
lecting the  doctor's  advice ; 

Disease  and  death  are  consequences  of  he,  or 
him,  neglecting  the  doctor's  advice. 

Can  any  person  doubt  that  the  possessive  case  is 
indispensable  in  those  instances  ? 

A  late  number  of  the  London  Times  has  this  sen- 
tence :  — 

"  The  solution  could  only  be  put  off  either  by 
the  Emperor  Napoleon  resolving  on  a  prolonged 
occupation  of  Mexico,  or  by  the  Emperor  Maximil- 
ian being  able  to  reply,"  etc. 

The  almost  universal  misuse,  by  the  misplacing, 
of  the  word  only  will  be  considered  on  a  subse- 
quent page;  but  a  few  words  here  may  not  be 
amiss.  Strictly  speaking,  that  sentence  is  so  ar- 
ranged that  instead  of  only's  being  misplaced, 
one  should  say  that  there  is  no  place  for  it. 

It  means,  as  the  preceding  lines  of  the  para- 
graph would  show  if  they  were  here  quoted,  that 


78  GOOD   ENGLISH. 

the  suggested  action  of  one  or  the  other  of  the 
emperors  is  the  only  way  to  postpone  the  solution. 
Therefore,  its  place  in  the  quoted  sentence  would 
be  this  :  "  The  solution  could  be  put  off  only  either 
by  the  Emperor  Napoleon,"  etc.,  which  is  altogether 
too  outrageous  to  be  thought  of ;  hence,  "  only  " 
has  no  place  and  must  be  stricken  out. 

But  the  sentence  from  the  Times  .is  a  recent  and 
responsible  instance  of  the  omission  of  the  posses- 
sive case.  The  Dean  would  say  that  the  sentence 
is  correct,  but  the  Dean  would  be  wrong.  "  Na- 
poleon" and  "Maximilian"  should  be  Napoleon's 
and  Maximilian's. 

The  reason  for  the  necessity  of  the  possessive 
case  in  such  sentences  is  to  be  found  in  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  :  the  solution  is  to  be  put  off — 
if  put  off — by  Napoleon's  act;  to  wit,  his  resolving 
so  and  so:  or,  by  Maximilian's  act;  that  is,  his 
"  being  able  "  so  and  so.  Dean  Alford's  argument 
virtually  assumes  that  Napoleon  and  Maximilian 
are  in  the  objective  case,  and  are  governed  by  the 
preposition  by,  which  is  contradicted  by  the  sense 
of  the  passage.  So,  again,  in  the  above-quoted 
sentence  of  the  Dean,  "  Day  and  night  are  conse- 
quences of  the  earth's  act,  —  to  wit,  its  revolving  on 
its  axis" :  the  "  consequences"  are  not  the  "  conse- 
quences of  the  earth,"  but  of  the  "  revolving,"  and 
the  revolving  is  the  earth's  act :  it  is  the  earth's  re- 
volving —  which  is  the  point  at  issue. 

Jenkins  and  Jones  have  good  reason  to  complain 
of  the  squeamishness  that  refuses  them  the  privilege 


MISUSED   WORDS.  79 

of  a  full  possessive  case,  which,  however,  is  freely 
accorded  to  Brown  and  /Smith.     On  the  same  page 
that  contains  a  tribute  to  Brown's  high  character, 
we  find  another  tribute  to  Jenkins'  memory. 
Byron  made  short  work  of  that,  when  he  wrote, 

"  And  ere  the  faithless  truce  was  broke 
Which  freed  her  from  the  unchristian  yoke, 
With  him  his  gentle  daughter  came  ; 
Nor  there  since  Menelaus's  dame 
Forsook,"  etc. 

In  that  case,  the  printer  may  do  what  he  pleases 
with  the  final  s,  —  use  it,  or  omit  it ;  but  the 
reader  will  take  care  to  pronounce  it  —  if  he 
knows  how  to  read. 

WHOSE. 

Every  man  who  is  sensitive  on  the  subject  of 
correct  language,  must  have  felt  the  want  of  an 
impersonal  relative  pronoun,  the  possessive  case  of 
which  should  hold  toward  things  the  relation  that 
"  whose"  holds  to  persons.  But  there  is  no  such 
pronoun,  and  no  human  ingenuity  can  make  one. 
In  its  absence,  whose  has  been  substituted  as  a 
matter  of  necessity  and  almost  by  common  con- 
sent ;  as, 

"  We  found  in  the  grove  one  enormous  tree 
whose  height  we  estimated  to  be  more  than  two 
hundred  feet." 

Some  of  the  best  English  writers  have  used 
"  whose  "  in  this  sense ;  Gibbon  uses  it  frequently, 
and  on  the  whole  it  should  be  accepted  as  inevita- 
ble. 


80  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

But  here,  as  elsewhere,  there  are  dissenting 
votes. 

Mr.  Washington  Moon,  an  expert  English  phi- 
lologist, who  is  known  as  an  able  and  persistent 
assailant  of  Dean  Alford's  book,  has  written  several 
letters  for  the  Round  Table,  in  which  he  sharply 
criticises  the  style  of  Mr.  Marsh's  communications 
in  The  Nation,  already  mentioned.  Mr.  Moon 
thus  stands  in  the  position  of  a  critic  criticising  a 
criticising  critic;  in  which  capacity  he  has  not 
escaped  criticism  at  the  hands  of  third  parties. 
Mr.  Moon,  speaking  of  Mr.  Marsh's  use  of  whose  in 
the  way  above  mentioned,  says  :  — 

—  Can  either  the  relative  pronoun  who,  or  its 
possessive  whose,  correctly  be  employed  concern- 
ing inanimate  objects  ?  I  think  not.  Of  the 
relative  pronouns,  who  and  whose  apply  either  to 
persons,  or  to  things  personified  ;  which  applies 
to  irrational  animals,  to  inanimate  objects,  and 
sometimes  to  infants  ;  and  that  is  used  to  pre- 
vent the  too  frequent  repetitions  of  who  and  of 
which,  and  applies  equally  to  persons,  to  animals, 
and  to  things.  Such  is  our  modern  usage ;  and 
to  it  we  ought  to  conform.  I  am  aware  that,  in 
olden  time,  it  was  the  custom  to  use  which  when 
speaking  of  persons ;  hence  the  phrase,  "  Our 
Father  which  art  in  heaven."  It  was  the  custom 
also  to  say  whose  when  speaking  of  things ;  hence, 
in  the  opening  lines  of  Paradise  Lost  we  read  — 

"  Of  man's  first  disobedience,  and  the  fruit 
Of  that  forbidden  tree  whose  mortal  taste." 


MISUSED    WORDS.  81 

But  now  the  best  writers,  when  speaking  of  in- 
animate objects,  use  of  which  instead  of  whose  ; 
and  I  am  surprised  to  find  Mr.  Marsh  saying, 
"  How  can  we  define  that  whose  being,  whose 
action,  whose  conditions,  whose  limitations  we  can- 
not comprehend  ?  "  Would  it  not  have  been  better 
to  say,  "  How  can  we  define  that  of  which  we  can- 
not comprehend  the  being,  the  action,  the  condi- 
tions, the  limitations  ?  "  — 

Of  which,  in  the  first  place,  be  it  remarked,  the 
assertion  —  "  the  best  writers  use  of  which  instead 
of  whose  "  —  is  not  true,  in  the  unqualified  way 
here  stated. 

Of  which,  in  the  second  place,  be  it, remarked, 
the  third  sentence  of  Mr.  Moon's  paragraph  is 
supererogatory. 

And  of  which,  in  the  third  place,  be  it  remarked, 
a  man  may  have  the  best  of  an  argument  and  yet 
be  practically  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  question 
argued. 

The  frequent  use  of  whose,  in  the  way  cited,  by 
many  of  the  best  writers,  for  the  last  hundred 
years,  establishes  a  prima  facie  case  of  necessity  ; 
for  so  frequent  a  violation  of  so  obvious  a  rule, 
could  hardly  have  been  accidental.  Whose  was  so 
used  because  there  was  no  help  for  it,  —  no  substi- 
tute for  it.  Mr.  Moon's  suggested  substitute  is  not 
new  ;  nor  does  its  grammatical  accuracy  help  it  to 
take,  in  all  cases,  the  place  he  assigns  to  it.  It 
therefore  does  not  satisfy  the  necessity. 

An  innovation  upon  a  philological  principle  is 


82  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

one  thing,  and  a  violation  of  a  philological  rule  is 
also  one  thing ;  neither  of  which  can  be  justified 
in  the  abstract.  And  when  either  is  made  without 
necessity,  it  cannot  be  justified  at  all :  as,  for  ex- 
ample, the  fabrication  of  a  word  that  is  not  needed ; 
or,  the  misuse  of  a  word  or  phrase  that  can  easily 
be  corrected.  But  an  innovation  upon  a  principle, 
or  a  violation  of  a  rule,  when  either  is  done  to 
satisfy  a  universally  acknowledged  necessity,  is 
another  thing. 

In  such  a  case,  the  plea  of  Bassanio  to  Portia, 

"  To  do  a  great  right,  do  a  little  wrong," 
comes  with  great  force.     It  is  true,  Portia  replies, 

"  It  must  not  be ; 
'T  would  be  recorded  for  a  precedent " : 

and  Justice  could  make  no  other  response.  But 
Portia,  herself,  says  to  Shylock, 

"  Though  justice  be  thy  plea,  consider  this,  — 

That  in  the  course  of  justice,  none  of  us 

Should  see  salvation  ;  we  do  pray  for  mercy  ; 

And  that  same  prayer  should  teach  us  all  to  render 

The  deeds  of  mercy." 

That  quotation,  with  necessity  substituted  for 
"  mercy,"  is  commended  to  Mr.  Moon's  notice. 

JOUENAL. 

This  word  comes  to  us  directly  from  the  French, 
without  any  change  of  spelling  and  with  little 
change  of  pronunciation.  The  French  journal  is 
from  the  Latin  diurnalis,  whence,  also,  the  Eng- 
lish diurnal.  This  etymology  renders  the  defini- 


MISUSED  WORDS.  83 

tion  inevitable  and  —  one  would  think  —  exclusive ; 
namely,  something  pertaining  to  daily  use  ;  and 
hence  its  application  to  a  daily  newspaper  is  ob- 
viously proper. 

But,  by  a  strange  latitude  of  application,  the 
word  has  finally  come  to  be  used  for  a  weekly 
newspaper  and  even  for  a  quarterly  review.  The 
writers  for  the  English  Quarterlies,  who  certainly 
rank  high  as  "  good  writers,"  frequently  refer,  in 
speaking  of  themselves,  "  to  the  course  uniformly 
pursued  by  this  journal." 

UNIVERSE. 

The  word  universe  is  very  often  used  as  the  mere 
synonyme  of  world,  this  world,  the  earth ;  when  a 
writer,  or  speaker,  wishes  to  give  emphasis  to  an 
assertion  ;  as, 

1     "  There  is  not  a  man  in  the  universe  who  could 
do  it." 

" That  is  the  finest  ship  in  the  universe" 
"  No  army  in  the  universe  could  beat  them." 
No  doubt,  there  is  a  universe  ;    but  the  word 
means  all  created  things,  as  a  whole ;  not  only  our 
entire  solar  system,  but  all  the  other  systems  of 
which  the  fixed  stars  are  but  the  centres. 

Therefore,  to  use  the  word  as  meaning  merely 
the  earth  —  which  is  necessarily  involved  by 
peopling  or  occupying  it  with  things  earthly  — is 
absurd  ;  not  to  say,  that  it  conveys  an  impression 
of  the  ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  on 
the  part  of  the  writer  or  speaker. 


84  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

EIDE.       DRIVE. 

The  use  of  drive,  for  ride,  to  express  being 
conveyed  in  a  carriage  instead  of  on  a  horse,  is  a 
miserable  affectation  of  accuracy.  There  is  no 
accuracy  about  it.  To  go  from  place  to  place  in 
a  carriage,  or  in  any  vehicle,  is  as  literally  and 
precisely  and  philologically  riding,  as  to  go  over  the 
same  ground  on  a  horse. 

The  discrimination  between  the  two  words,  — 
riding  and  driving,  —  which  a  pseudo-fashion  has 
attempted  to  establish,  both  in  England  and  in  the 
United  States,  is  mere  pedantry,  without  a  pre- 
tence of  philological  authority. 

A  lady  says  she  is  "  going  to  drive  in  the 
Park,"  when  she  is  not  going  to  do  anything  of  the 
kind.  Her  coachman  is  to  drive,  and  he  drives,  not 
her,  but  the  horses.  She  is  to  ride ;  and  she  has 
nothing  to  do  with  driving.  To  be  sure,  a  lady 
does  sometimes  drive,  by  taking  the  driver's  seat, 
the  whip,  and  "  the  ribbons  "  —  but  that  is  another 
matter. 

Pray,  what  is  travelling  in  a  railroad  car?  Is 
that  "  driving  "  ? 

ISSUE. 

Newspapers,  magazines  and  reviews  are  issued  at 
stated  periods ;  and,  without  exception,  each  of 
such  publications  is  numbered  consecutively  with  the 
others.  The  first  issued  is  number  one,  the  second, 
number  two ;  and  so  on,  for  a  million,  if  circum- 
stances permit.  Hence,  when  a  particular  paper, 
or  magazine,  or  review  is  to  be  designated,  the 


MISUSED  WORDS.  85 

proper  term  is,  "  your  paper,  or  magazine,  or  re- 
view of  such  a  date  "  ;  or,  more  generally,  "  a  late 
number ,  or  a  recent  number,  of  your  paper,"  etc. 

But  modern  precision,  or  ambition,  has  "  changed 
all  that "  ;  and  now,  we  read  of  "  a  late  issue,  or  a 
recent  issue,  of  your  paper  "  ;  or,  what  is  quite 
as  common,  and  even  worse,  "  one  of  your  late 
issues,"  or  "  your  issue  of  yesterday." 

CASE. 

In  a  recent  obituary  of  a  distinguished  and  much- 
lamented  citizen  of  New  York,  a  "sensational" 
writer  spoke  of  the  case,  and  in  another  sentence 
of  the  casket,  in  which  the  remains  were  deposited. 

Did  the  gentleman  know  that  there  is  such  a 
word  as  coffin  ?  Or,  had  he  in  mind  the  quaint  con- 
ceit of  Dickens  in  Bleak  House,  which  is  developed 
through  the  profound  Skimpole  ?  A  certain 
butcher  applies  for  the  payment  of  "  his  little  bill" ; 
as  if,  by  using  the  diminutive  adjective,  he  some- 
how made  the  payment  easier.  Thus,  the  news- 
paper writer  may  have  thought  that  he  was  slyly 
administering  consolation  to  the  bereaved  friends, 
by  intimating  that  a  man  in  a  "  casket "  is  not 
quite  so  dead  as  a  man  in  a  coffin. 

TO   THE  MUZZLE. 

When  a  burglar,  or  any  desperate  ruffian,  is  ar- 
rested "  in  the  fact "  and  is  searched,  he  is  usually 
found  to  be  armed  with  a  pistol  "  loaded  to  the  muz- 
zle." When  artillery-men,  at  sea  or  on  land,  grow 
desperate,  they  load  their  guns  "  to  the  muzzle  " 


86  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Does  any  person  who  uses  those  overcharged 
expressions  happen  to  know  what  would  be  the 
effect  of  loading  a  cannon,  or  any  fire-arm,  "  to  the 
muzzle  "  ? 

If  he  should  once  discharge  a  weapon  loaded  in 
that  style,  he  probably  would  never  again  describe 
the  process  of  such  loading. 

APPREHEND,   ETC. 

This  is  a  favourite  substitute  for  think,  fancy, 
believe,  imagine,  etc. 

Says  a  newspaper  writer,  "  Now  we  apprehend 
that  this  is  a  very  limited  view  of  the  case." 

"  We  apprehend  that  the  President  misunderstood 
the  Secretary." 

Even  predict  is  sometimes  used  to  a  similar 
effect :  — 

"  We  predict  that  Johnson  did  not  in  fact  steal 
the  horse." 

Of  these  two, predict  is  a  stupid  blunder;  and 
apprehend  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  long  word. 

One  of  the  New  York  morning  newspapers  re- 
cently remarked,  that  the  only  way  such  a  political 
party  "  could  be  resurrected,"  was  so  and  so.  And 
another,  not  to  be  behind  in  the  race,  said,  that  it 
would  be  good  policy  "  to  placate  our  opponents." 
The  latter  word  is  accredited  in  the  last  edition  of 
Webster ;  and  no  doubt  the  former  will  be  so,  in 
the  next  edition. 

A  weekly  newspaper  contains  this  sentence :  "  In 
fact,  the  opponents  of  the  whole  series  of  amend- 


MISUSED   WORDS.  87 

ment,  unable  to  hostilize  it  on  its  merits,  neverthe- 
less object  to  it  as  supererogatory  and  unneces- 
sary." At  first  sight,  "  hostilize  "  seems  to  be  a 
new  candidate  for  admission  into  the  family ;  but  a 
reference  to  the  last  edition  of  Webster  indicates 
that  it  is  a  superannuated  member,  labelled  "  obso- 
lete." Its  revival  is  rather  "  supererogatory." 

The  same  paper  contains  this  very  questionable 
compliment  to  an  absent  friend :  "  This  gentleman 
has  spent  several  months  of  active  travel  and  dili- 
gent inquiry  in  the  country,  penetrating  to  the 
Sierra  Nevada,  and  spending  some  weeks  in  close 
observation  in  Utah,  where,  through  a  concurrence 
of  favourable  circumstances,  he  enjoyed  exceptionable 
opportunities  for  acquainting  himself  with  the  organ 
ization,  probity,  and  inner  life  of  the  Mormons." 

If  that  had  been  published  in  a  daily  newspaper, 
one  might  suppose  that  the  writer,  or  compositor, 
or  proof-reader,  by  reason  of  haste,  mistook  "  ex- 
ceptionable "  for  exceptional;  for  the  typographical 
difference  between  the  two  words  is  not  great. 
But  in  a  weekly  paper,  the  oversight  of  three  men 
in  succession  is  not  so  easily  explained. 

ONE   HALF. 

In  the  newspaper  advertisements  of  dividends  by 
money  corporations,  we  constantly  read  that  such 
or  such  an  institution  "  has  declared  a  dividend  of 
three  and  one  half  per  cent,"  etc. 

In  arithmetical  expression,  there  can  be  but  one 
half,  because  two  halves  make  one  whole  ;  as  twenty 


88  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

shillings  make  one  pound.  Therefore,  as  in  the 
arithmetical  formulas,  two  halves  are  unknown,  one 
half  is  pretentiously  precise,  and  a  half  is  the 
proper  term.  Quarters,  eighths,  etc.  exist  in 
larger  numbers,  and  one  quarter,  one  eighth,  or 
three  quarters,  five  eighths,  etc.,  are  necessary  and 
proper  expressions. 

NEVER. 

Never  is  often  improperly  used  for  not,  but  it 
means  something  more  than  "  not."  The  words 
may  be  used  interchangeably  in  certain  cases  ;  but 
"  never  "  means,  primarily,  not  ever,  not  at  any 
time,  at  no  time,  etc. ;  and,  with  that  definition  in 
view,  any  one  can  see  that  its  application  to  an 
event  that,  in  the  nature  of  things,  could  take  place 
but  once,  is  of  questionable  propriety.  For  exam- 
ple, the  birth  of  a  person ;  or  his  death ;  or  the 
creation  or  destruction  of  any  one  thing ;  as, 

"  General  Washington  was  never  born  in  New 
York  "  ; 

"  Napoleon  never  died  in  France  "  ; 

"That  tree,  that  house,  that  ship,  was  never 
destroyed  by  fire,"  —  it  being  understood  that  each 
was  destroyed  in  some  way, — or,  "that  house,  that 
ship,  was  never  built  by  contract,"  etc. 

MAKE  NO   MORE  NOISE  THAN   YOU   CAN   HELP. 

That  is  wrong,  but  the  correct  phrase  (cannot 
help)  seems  wrong ;  and  either  is  clumsy.  "  Make 
no  noise  that  you  can  avoid  or  help,"  is  a  better 
phrase,  but  it  is  rather  formal. 


MISUSED  WORDS.  89 

The  error  of  the  more  familiar  phrase  is  seen 
when  the  elliptically  omitted  words  are  supplied : 
"  make  no  more  noise  than  the  noise  that  you  can- 
not help  making  "  ;  or,  "  than  such  as  you  cannot 
help  making." 

A  FEW. 

The  accuracy  of  a  few  is  sometimes  questioned, 
on  the  assumption  that  it  cannot  be  correct  because 
a  many  is  incorrect ;  but  both  are  right. 

The  indefinite  article  has  a  "  singular  "  meaning, 
but  it  is  also  applicable  to  a  collective  number ;  as, 
a  hundred.  A  great  many,  is  also  correct ;  like  so 
many,  very  many,  being  a  manner  of  comparative 
designation. 

"  Many  a  gem  of  purest  ray  " 

is  but  a  later  and  substituted  use  for  a  many  gems. 

Few,  without  the  article,  has  almost  a  negative 
sense,  meaning  almost  none;  as, 

"  Few  men  could  be  found  to  do  so  base  an  act." 

TO   PEOGKESS. 

Much  ink  has  been  wasted  to  prove  tia&t  progress, 
as  a  verb,  is  both  an  Americanism  and  a  modern 
vulgarism. 

Dean  Alford  says : 

"  The  verb  to  progress  is  challenged  by  one  of 
my  friends  as  a  modern  (sic)  Americanism.  This 
is  not  strictly  true.  Shakespeare  uses  it  in  King 
John,  Act  V.  Sc.  2,— 

'  Let  me  wipe  off  this  honourable  dew 
That  silverly  doth  progress  o'er  thy  cheeks.' 


90  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

But  you  will  observe  that  the  line  requires  the 
word  to  be  pronounced  progress,  not  progress,  so 
that  .this  is  perhaps  hardly  a  case  in  point,  except  as 
to  the  word,  a  verb  formed  on  the  noun  progress." 
(The  last  two  lines  are  copied  verbatim  et  punctua- 
tim.^)  To  that,  the  Dean  appends  this  note :  — 

"  I  mention,  as  in  courtesy  bound,  an  account 
of  this  construction  which  has  been  sent  me  by  a 
correspondent  anxious  to  vindicate  Shakespeare 
from  having  used  a  modern  vulgarism.*  He  would 
understand  doth  progress  as  doeth  progress.  Surely, 
he  can  hardly  be  in  earnest." 

The  Dean,  afterward,  and  at  length,  argues  and 
illustrates  the  question  ;  quoting  Milton's  use  of 
the  word  in  a  different  sense,  which,  again,  "  is 
hardly  a  case  in  point."  But  he  fails  to  quote 
from  Gibber's  alteration  of  Richard  III.,  what 
Gloster  says,  — 

"  Alas  !  she  keeps  no  bed  ; 

She  has  health  enough  to  progress  far  as  Chertsey, 
But  not,  to  bear  the  sight  of  me,"  — 

which,  as  an  illustration  of  English  usage,  is  at 
least  as  much  "  in  point "  as  the  quotation  from 
Shakespeare. 

The  conclusion  of  the  Dean  is,  that,  notwith- 
standing all  that  has  been  urged  against  the  verb, 
it  is  wanted  and  should  be  recognized  ;  but  he  in 
no  respect  retracts  his  position  that  its  accent  on 

1  "Shakespeare's  having  used  a  modern  vulgarism,"  is  about 
equal  to  Jeffrey's  remark,  in  his  Essays,  —  "  It  is  well  known  that 
the  ancients  have  stolen  most  of  our  bright  thoughts." 


MISUSED   WORDS.  91 

the  second  syllable  is  a  "  modern  Americanism " 
and  a  vulgarism. 

The  Dean's  position,  in  that  regard,  seems,  then, 
to  be  nothing  less  than  this :  that  whenever  an 
English  verb  and  noun  are,  respectively,  identical 
in  spelling,  they  are  also  identical  in  pronunciation. 

Assuming  that  to  be  the  position  of  the  Dean,  it 
is  "  in  order  "  to  remind  him  of  a  word  precisely 
"  in  point "  —  apropos  to  his  remarks  on  America  ; 
and  on  the  American  war,  now  recently  terminated. 
He  says  —  "  Queen's  English,"  paragraph  8  :  —  * 

"  Look,  to  take  one  familiar  example,  at  the 
process  of  deterioration  which  our  Queen's  English 
has  undergone  at  the  hands  of  the  Americans. 
Look  at  those  phrases  which  so  amuse  us  in  their 
speech  and  books ;  at  their  reckless  exaggeration 
and  contempt  for  congruity  ;  and  then  compare  the 
character  and  history  of  the  nation,!  —  its  blunted 
sense  of  moral  obligation  and  duty  to  man  ;  its 
open  disregard  of  conventional  right  where  ag- 
grandizement is  to  be  obtained ;  $  and  I  may  now  " 

*  The  paragraphs  of  the  book  are  numbered  consecutively,  to 
the  end ;  an  arrangement  that  makes  references  very  convenient. 

t  This  line  leads  a  reader  to  expect  —  and  an  American  to  hope 
—  that  England  is  to  be  made  the  object  of  "  comparison,"  or  con- 
trast. But  the  reader  finds  that  the  Dean  has  blundered  in  his 
syntax  and  not  in  his  nationality.  He,  the  reader,  is  left  to 
"  guess  "  whether  the  Dean  means  to  "  compare  the  character  and 
the  history  of  the  nation  with  "  something  that  he  has  forgotten  to 
put  in  his  paragraph ;  or,  to  "compare  the  character  of  the  nation 
with  the  history  of  the  nation." 

J  Might  an  American  venture  to  ask,  How  about  British  rule 
in  India  ? 


92  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

[October,  1864]  "  say,  its  reckless  and  fruitless  (?) 
maintenance  of  the  most  cruel  and  unprincipled 
war  in  the  history  of  the  world." 

The  word  precisely  "  in  point,"  above  mentioned, 
to  which  it  is  deemed  "in  order"  to  call  the 
Dean's  attention,  is  rebel. 

Americans  pronounce  that  word  rSbel  as  a  noun, 
and  rebel  as  a  verb.  Is  rebgl,  therefore,  a  "  mod- 
ern vulgarism  "  ?  That  is  the  result  of  the  Dean's 
argument:  ex.  gr.  Shakespeare  and  Gibber  say 
pr6gress ;  Americans  say  progress :  hence,  the 
latter  is  a  "  modern  "  Americanism  and  a  vulgar- 
ism. 

Does  not  the  Dean  know  that  Shakespeare,  in 
hundreds  of  instances,  gives  a  false  quantity  to 
words,  —  nouns,  verbs,  and  adjectives  indiscrimi- 
nately, —  for  the  sake  of  rhythm  ? 

Macbeth  says, 

"  I  conjure  you,  by  that  which  you  profess, 
Howe'er  you  came  to  know  it,  answer  me." 

Hamlet  says, 

"  What  may  this  mean, 
That  thou,  dead  corse,  again,  in  complete  steel 
Revisit'st  thus  the  glimpses  of  the  moon,"  etc. 

Also, 

"  Tears  in  his  eyes,  distraction  in 'B  aspect, 
A  broken  voice,"  etc. 

To  anticipate  a  charge,  that  this  course  of  argu- 
ment is  not  quite  fair  toward  the  Dean,  on  the 
ground  that  he  speaks  of  "  progress  "  as  one  of  a 
class  of  nouns  that  have,  by  usage,  been  changed 


MISUSED   WORDS.  93 

into  verbs,  —  whereas  rebel  is,  on  the  contrary,  an 
instance  of  the  reversed  process,  —  it  is  proper  to 
admit,  that,  in  that  respect,  "  rebel  "  is  not  strictly 
"  a  case  in  point "  ;  and  that  the  word  was  cited  as 
appropriate  to  the  Dean's  views  of  America,  rather 
than  as  exactly  relevant  to  his  charge  of  "  Ameri- 
canism." 

Therefore,  to  meet  him  precisely  on  his  own 
ground,  it  is  necessary  to  cite  "  one  tvord  or  more  " 
that  will  come  within  the  category  of  verbs  formed 
from  nouns  ;  which  verbs  are  accented  on  the 
second  syllable,  although  the  primitive  nouns  are 
accented  on  the  first. 

Whether  or  not  such  words  are  difficult  to  find, 
happens  not  to  be  important ;  because  the  Dean 
himself,  on  the  very  page  following  his  aforesaid 
philological  heresy,  furnishes  three,  —  digest,  object, 
project ;  and  he  assumes  the  responsibility  of  vouch- 
ing for  their  derivation.* 

MONEY.      MONIES. 

Dean  Alford  says  of  the  orthography  of  the  sin- 
gular and  plural  of  money,  etc.  :  — 

"  There  seems  to  be  a  liability  to  error  in  the 
formation  of  some  plurals.  The  words  attorney 

*  It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  remark,  that  when  the  Dean 
speaks  of  verbs'  being  formed  from  nouns,  and  of  turning  nouns 
into  verbs,  he  must  be  understood  as  speaking  chronologically 
and  not  etymologically ;  for,  while  there  is  a  Latin  verb  progredior, 
progredi,  progressus,  meaning  to  go  forward,  he  Can  hardly  claim 
that  the  verb  to  progress  has  not,  in  fact,  a  Latin  etymology.  He 
means,  no  doubt,  that  the  noun,  from  progressio,  came  into  use 
before  the  verb  did. 


94  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

and  money  are  thus  often  made  into  attornies  and 
monies.  This  is  of  course  wrong ;  we  might  as 
well  turn  the  singular  key  into  a  plural  kies.  I  am 
not  aware  that  any  one  ever  wrote  monkies  or  don- 
kies,  for  monkeys  or  donkeys.  And  this  is  not  a 
case  of  rule  against  usage ;  for  all  our  better  and 
more  careful  writers  use  the  right  plurals,  viz.  at- 
torneys and  moneys" 

That  is  very  well,  so  far  as  it  goes.  But  if  the 
Dean  wished  to  convey  to  his  readers  practical  and 
available  information,  he  should  have  exhausted 
the  subject. 

The  rule,  which  is  of  universal  application,  and 
is  not  limited  —  as  the  Dean's  paragraph  negative- 
ly implies  —  to  money  and  attorney,  is  this  :  words 
ending  in  y,  with  a  precedent  vowel,  are  formed  into 
plurals  by  the  addition  of  s  ;  and  words  ending  in 
y,  without  a  vowel,  are  so  formed  by  the  omission 
of  the  y,  and  the  substitution  of  ies.  And  a  short 
process  of  fixing  the  rule  in  the  memory  is,  to  note 
that  when  any  word  in  question  has  a  vowel  in  its 
final  syllable  in  the  singular  —  as  money,  delay, 
convoy,  etc.  —  that  word  requires  no  substitution 
of  i  for  y  ;  but  the  words  which  have  no  vowel  in 
the  final  syllable  —  as  lady  —  do  require  such  sub- 
stitution. 

Thus,  chimney,  chimneys  ;  money,  moneys  ;  attor- 
ney, attorneys  ;  monkey,  monkeys  ;  donkey,  donkeys  ; 
etc.  And  for  nouns  ending  in  y :  mercy,  mercies  ; 
supply,  supplies  ;  pony,  ponies  ;  etc. 

But  the  Dean  says  he  is  "  not  aware  that  any  one 


MISUSED   WORDS.  95 

ever  wrote  monJcies  for  monkeys,  or  donkies  for  don- 
keys." 

It  is  positively  funny,  that,  although  the  Dean 
failed  in  his  deliberate  attempt  to  be  severe  on  his 
Transatlantic  cousins  (quoted  on  pages  91,  92),  he 
here  gives  them  a  really  hard  hit,  without  know- 
ing it. 

The  Dean  is  "  not  aware  that  any  one  ever  wrote 
donkies  for  donkeys." 

"  Hamlet.  Dost  know  this  water-fly  ? 

Horatio.  No,  my  good  lord. 

Hamlet.  Thy  state  is  the  more  gracious,  for 't  is  a  vice  to 
know  him." 

Thus,  although  the  Dean  professes  elsewhere  to 
"  know  "  the  United  States  politically,  morally,  and 
philologically,  his  "  state  is  more  gracious  "  than 
he  thinks,  as  to  the  last  item.  He  is  not  aware  of 
what  comes  of  following  Webster's  dogmas.  Web- 
ster did  not,  indeed,  find  the  e  of  donkey  "  super- 
fluous "  ;  but  he  found  so  many  superfluous  letters 
elsewhere,  that  publishers  who  adopt  his  dictionary 
as  their  standard  of  orthography  —  without,  one 
may  presume,  having  any  very  enlightened  views 
of  their  own  011  the  subject  —  find  themselves 
sometimes  following  his  principles  instead  of  his 
practice.  So  that,  after  catching  from  his  example 
the  bad  habit  of  holding  silent  letters  to  be  super- 
fluous, they  carry  their  practice  a  little  further  than 
the  examples  go,  though  not  at  all  further  than  the 
principles  warrant. 

One  may  imagine  the  horror  of  Dickens,  when 


96  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

he  saw,  if  he  ever  saw,  a  New  York  reprint  of 
David  Copperfield,  at  beholding,  "  Janet,  donkies  !  " 
Verily,  that  was  a  suggestive  word  for  the  med- 
dling of  an  orthographical  reformer  ! 

I   NEVER  MEAN  TO. 

This  is  a  very  common  phrase  in  conversation 
and  in  the  colloquial  parts  of  novels ;  but  it  will 
not  bear  scrutiny. 

There  are  three  modifications  of  the  use  of 
never,  each  of  which  has  a  distinct  signification 
The  correct  form  of  the  phrase,  namely,  "  I  mean 
never  to  do  so,"  signifies, "  I  now  intend  never  to  do 
so."  Again,  "  I  never  will  do  so,"  is  a  nearly  ac- 
curate form  of  the  positive  assertion  for  a  future 
course  of  conduct.  And,  "  I  never  meant  to  do 
so  "  is  a  correct  form  of  expressing  the  entire  ab- 
sence of  any  past  intent  to  do  so.  But,  "  I  never 
mean  to  "  is  entirely  inadmissible. 

BOURN. 

This  word  is  perpetually  misused  in  the  way  of 
quotation  —  or  rather,  of  pretended  quotation  ;  for 
the  process  is  always  a  misquotation.  It  is  used  in 
this  way :  — 

"  Our  friend  went  (or  was  accompanied,  or  has 
gone)  to  that  bourn  from  which  no  traveller  re- 
turns." 

The  line  is  intended  to  be,  and  seems  generally 
supposed  to  be,  a  quotation  from  Shakespeare  — 
which,  however,  it  certainly  is  not. 


MISUSED   WORDS.  97 

Hamlet,  in  his  soliloquy  on  suicide,  says  that 
"  something  after  death  "  is 

"  The  undiscovered  country,  from  whose  bourn 
No  traveller  returns." 

And  "  bourn  "  means  boundary,  border,  limit,  or 
edge  of  a  country ;  not  the  country  itself.  Inde- 
pendently of  which  meaning,  the  construction  of 
the  verse  shows  that  Shakespeare  did  not  use  the 
word  in  the  sense  of  a  locality,  but  as  the  dividing 
line  between  localities.  Shakespeare's  meaning 
would  be  fully  expressed  by 

"  The  undiscovered  country,  from  whose  edge 
No  traveller  returns." 

And,  in  that  case,  were  the  popular  phrase  to  run 
thus,  "  Our  friend  has  gone  to  that  edge  from 
which  no  traveller  returns,"  the  quotation  would 
be  just  as  correct  and  just  as  silly  as  it  is  now. 

One  would  suppose  that,  in  legal  phrase,  the  case 
might  "  rest "  here.  But,  somehow  or  other,  people 
are  particularly  obtuse,  when  listening  to  the  cor- 
rection of  a  widely  spread  error.  They  don't  see  it. 
They  are  accustomed  to  the  phraseology  in  the  pop- 
ular form.  They  know  what  the  speaker  means. 
The  difference  is  not  much,  after  all.  And  so  forth. 

Well,  perhaps  the  difference  is  "  not  much." 
But  at  least,  it  is  the  difference  between  sense  and 
nonsense.  Look  at  Hamlet's  words,  at  greater 

length :  — 

"  Who  would  fardels  bear, 
To  groan  and  sweat  under  a  weary  life, 
But  that  the  dread  of  something  after  death  — 
The  undiscovered  country,  from  whose  bourn 
5  • 


98  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

No  traveller  returns  —  puzzles  the  will, 
And  makes  us  rather  bear  the  ills  we  have 
Than  fly  to  others  that  we  know  not  of." 

It  is  obvious,  from  this,  that  the  locality  whence 
travellers  do  not  return  is  "  something  after  death," 
or,  metaphorically,  "  the  undiscovered  country  "  ; 
and  that  "  bourn  "  is  not,  and  was  not  intended  to 
be,  the  equivalent  of  either  :  yet,  in  the  misquota- 
tion referred  to,  "  bourn  "  is  gravely  put  forward 
as  the  full  substitute  for  both. 

Therefore,  when  a  man  writes,  or  says  —  as  ten 
thousand  men  do  write  or  say  —  that  somebody  has 
gone,  or  is  carried,  "  to  that  bourn  from  which  no 
traveller  returns,"  he  caricatures,  instead  of  quot- 
ing, Shakespeare. 

Akin  to  this  quotation  is  another,  from  the  Bible, 
that  has  gained  even  more  currency  than  "  that 
bourn  "  ;  and  clergymen  are  guilty  of  the  blunder 
quite  as  often  as  laymen.  But  there  is  this  to  be 
said  in  its  favour,  that  the  misquoting  does  not 
make  nonsense  of  the  passage. 

In  Genesis  iii.  19  we  read,  "  In  the  sweat  of 
thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto 
the  ground."  But  did  anybody  ever  hear,  or  see, 
that  quoted  otherwise  than  "  in  the  sweat  of  his 
brow  "  ? 

OPENED   UP. 

No  man  can  now  hear  or  read  an  essay  on  public 
matters,  without  being  informed  that  "  negotiations 
have  been  opened  up  "  between  certain  persons  ;  or, 
that  "  this  action,  on  the  part  of  Congress,  opens 
up  the  whole  subject "  ;  and  so  on. 


MISUSED   WORDS.  99 

Can  any  English  scholar  inform  anybody  else 
what  is  the  propriety  of  "  up  "  in  those  and  in  a 
thousand  similar  instances  ?  No  doubt,  "  up  "  is 
a  little  word,  and  it  may  often  be  overlooked  in  a 
crowd ;  but  it  has  a  very  ambitious  strut,  when 
thus  paraded  on  stilts. 

FROM  HENCE. 

Any  man  curious  in  such  matters,  may  look 
through  thousands  of  volumes  in  any  department 
of  English  literature,  without  finding  one  free  from 
the  incessant  recurrence  of  from  hence,  from  thence, 
and  from  whence. 

Yet  "  hence,"  by  itself,  means  from  here; 
"  thence,"  from  there;  and  "  whence,"  from  where. 
Therefore,  "from  whence  "  and  its  cousins  mean, 
respectively,  from-from  here,  from-from  there,  and 
from- from  where. 

FROM   OUT. 

Another  and  a  similar  blunder  is  nearly  peculiar 
to  the  poets.  A  quotation,  or  two,  will  show  the 
way  it  is  used. 

SCOTT  says, 

"  The  train  from  out  the  castle  drew, 
But  Marmion  stopped  to  bid  adieu." 

BYRON  says, 

«  But  could  the  blood  before  her  shed, 
Since  first  Timoleon's  brother  bled, 
Or  baffled  Persia's  despot  fled, 
Arise  from  out  the  earth,  which  drank 
The  stream  of  slaughter  as  it  sank,"  etc. 


100  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

The  recurrence  of  this  phrase  is  not  so  incessant 
as  is  "  from  hence,"  etc.,  but  probably  few  English 
or  American  poets  who  have  had  occasion  to  say 
what  Scott  and  Byron  here  meant  to  say,  are  inno- 
cent of  the  blunder.  Yet  none  of  them  says  what 
he  means. 

To  "  draw  from  out  the  castle,"  would  inevitably 
be  to  draw  into  the  castle.  If  the  poets  would  take 
the  trouble  to  transpose  the  two  words,  —  in  case 
they  must  use  just  those  two  words  and  no  others, 
—  the  difficulty  would  be  obviated.  "  Out  from 
the  castle,"  "  out  from  the  earth,"  is  what  they 
mean  :  why  can  they  not  say  so  ? 

ONLY. 

Another  blunder,  of  which  the  instances  are 
innumerable,  is  the  misplacing  of  the  word  only. 
Indeed,  this  is  so  common,  so  absolutely  universal, 
one  may  almost  say  that  "  only  "  cannot  be  found 
in  its  proper  place  in  any  book  within  the  whole 
range  of  English  literature,  —  to  say  nothing  of 
newspapers,  magazines,  and  the  various  depart- 
ments of  spoken  language. 

A  few  instances,  taken  at  random  from  any  book, 
will  suffice  to  show  the  manner  in  which  the  word 
is  used :  — 

"  The  light,  sandy  soil  of  the  hills  only  favours 
the  fern." 

"  He  was  elected,  but  only  was  seen  twice  in  the 
House." 

"  I  only  distribute  them  among  the  lower  ranks." 


MISUSED  WORDS.  101 

"  They  only  ceased  when  the  day  was  closing." 
In  these  cases,  as  in  thousands  of  others  that 
might  be  cited,  the  error  consists  in  placing  "  only" 
before  the  verb,  instead  of  after  it ;  the  grammati- 
cal effect  of  which  is  to  make  only  apply  to  the 
verb,  instead  of  what  follows  the  verb. 

The  meaning  of  the  writer  is  that  only  the  fern 
is  favoured  ;  that  the  member  "  was  seen  only 
twice"  ;  that  the  distribufion  was  only  to  the  lower 
ranks ;  and  that  "  they  ceased  only  when  (that  is, 
not  until)  the  day  was  closing." 

WAS. 

The  use  of  the  past  for  the  present  tense,  when 
the  writer  or  speaker  wishes  to  express  an  existing 
fact,  is  a  blunder  common  to  every  man,  woman, 
and  child  who  uses  the  English  language. 

These  are  familiar  instances :  — 

"  The  truth  was,  that  James  struck  him  first." 
"  I  told  him  that  the  Mississippi  ran  southerly." 
"  Did  you  tell  him  you  were  John's  brother  ? " 
"  They  ascertained  that  the  Great  Pyramid  stood 
on  the  bank  of  the  Nile." 

There  is  no  end  to  the  examples  that  might  be 
given ;  but  here  is  one  from  Mr.  Moon,  in  one  of 
his  criticisms  on  Mr.  Marsh,  in  the  Round  Table  :  — 

"  That  no  doubt  was  what  he  intended  to  do,  but 
certainly  it  was  not  what  he  did." 

In  all  these,  as  in  all  other  cases  like  them,  the 
verb  should  be  in  the  present  tense :  the  truth  is, 
the  river  runs,  you  are  a  brother,  the  Pyramid 
stands,  etc. 


102  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

GRADUATED. 

This  word,  when  applied  to  one  who  receives  a 
degree  from  a  college,  is  a  past  participle  of  the 
verb  to  graduate,  (to  mark  with  degrees,  to  con- 
fer a  degree,)  and  requires  some  part  of  the  verb 
to  be  before  it :  yet  it  is,  oftener  than  otherwise, 
used  in  the  past  tense  of  the  active  verb. 

In  the  memoir  of  Webster,  at  the  beginning  of 
his  dictionary,  it  is  said  that  "  he  graduated  with 
reputation  in  1788."  The  biographer  might  as 
well  have  said  that  "  he  born  on  the  16th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1758." 

PLEAD. 

In  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  where  the  verb  to  plead 
is  used  in  the  past  tense,  it  is  spoken  and  written 
as  if  its  conjugation  were  analogous  to  read;  and 
as  people  say  read  (pronounced  red),  so  they  say 
plead,  pronounced  pled.  But  that  is  not  the  for- 
mation of  the  verb.  It  is  analogous  to  knead, 
Jcneaded  ;  and  is  plead,  pleaded. 

FIGURE. 

Newspaper  usage  and  oral  usage  have  made  this 
word  synonymous  with  amount,  or  sum,  or  number  ; 
as, "  a  thousand  dollars,  or  about  ih&t  figure."  "  The 
sale  of  cotton  reached  a  very  large  figure."  This  is  a 
piece  of  vulgarism  that  is  just  one  remove  from  slang ; 
yet  it  is  working  its  way  up,  as  all  corruptions  do. 

Dean  Alford  says,  paragraph  19,  —  "  has  at- 
tained a  circulation  of  1000 :  no  very  large  figure, 
certainly,"  etc.  Mem.  Put  that  against  some  of  the 
Dean's  sneers ! 


MISUSED    WORDS.  103 

MATINEE,   ETC. 

Under  the  present  system  of  education,  the 
French  language  has  become  familiar  to  the  peo- 
ple, especially  to  those  persons  who  are  known  by 
a  designating  phrase  that  Dean  Alford  very  justly 
condemns  ;  namely,  "  the  rising  generation." 

Yet  this  general  introduction  of  the  language 
among  our  people  has  its  inconveniences.  Many 
persons  use  French  words  and  phrases,  without 
understanding  them. 

Matinee  is  an  extension  of  the  French  matin, 
morning  ;  and  it  is  the  proper  term  for  a  morning 
reception,  or  a  morning  musical  or  theatrical  per- 
formance. But  one  of  the  newspapers  recently 
informed  its  readers  of  an  "  afternoon  matine'e  "  at 
one  of  the  theatres. 

Au  fait,  which  may  be  substantially  interpreted 
by  the.  slang  term  "  posted,"  is  a  convenient  phrase 
now  and  then  ;  but  when  a  person  happens  to  use 
it  instead  of  passe,  a  bygone  style,  one  is  apt  to 
think  that  words  and  phrases  from  the  French 
are  dangerous  to  the  uninitiated. 

De  trop,  which  idiomatically  means  "  too  many," 
or  "  one  too  many,"  —  as,  a  third  person  intruding 
on  a  tete-a-tete,  or  anywhere  else  where  he  is  not 
wanted,  —  is  sometimes  used  as  the  equivalent  of 
general  disagreeableness ;  which  falls  quite  short 
of  the  force  of  the  phrase. 

TRY   AND. 

This  is  a  very  common  substitute  for  try  to,  in 
contemporaneous  literature  and  in  conversation. 


104  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

"  Try  and  listen  to  me  for  a  moment." 

"  Begin  at  the  beginning  and  try  and  remember 

everything." 

"  Let  me  try  and  explain  away  the  presumption 

of  such  a  project." 

DECEIVING. 

This  word  is  constantly  misused  in  the  phrases, 
"  you  are  deceiving  me,"  "  he  is  deceiving  me  "  ; 
because  the  speaker  means  the  reverse  of  what  he 
says.  His  meaning,  paraphrased,  is,  "  you  are  try- 
ing to  deceive  me,  but  you  cannot,  or  will  not,  ac- 
complish it  "  ;  or,  "  you  are  misrepresenting  these 
facts  in  order  to  deceive  me  "  ;  and  so  on. 

"Deceiving"  means  successful  misrepresentation  ; 
and  it  is  not  proper  for  a  person  thus  to  apply  its 
action  to  himself;  because  his  making  the  remarks, 
as  above  cited,  shows  that  the  misrepresentation,  in 
his  case,  is  unsuccessful.  He  sees  through  it. 

The  verb  may  be  used  in  a  past  tense,  describing 
a  deceit  that  has  actually  been  practised  ;  as,  "  I 
was  deceived,"  "  you  have  deceived  me,"  etc.,  but 
in  a  presently  passing  sense,  it  is  self-contradictory. 

The  verb  may,  however,  be  used  in  the  present 
tense,  when  referring  to  third  persons ;  as,  "  You 
are  deceiving  him,  or  them." 

The  main  reason  for  the  misuse  of  "  deceiving  " 
is,  probably,  the  fact  that  the  speaker's  meaning 
is,  lying;  and,  in  ordinary  cases,  people  prefer  to 
avoid  that  word  for  some  more  moderate  expres- 
sion, which  will,  however,  convey  the  same  sense. 


MISUSED  WORDS.  105 

But  there  is  no  short  single  English  word  that 
performs  the  duty  of  "  lying."  Falsifying  is  the 
nearest  to  being  a  substitute,  but  that  is  both  too 
long  and  too  formal  for  the  emergency. 

THE   TERMINATION   "  LOGY." 

As  a  matter  of  curiosity  or  speculation,  one  may 
remark  on  the  seemingly  capricious  terminations 
that  are  given  to  the  artificers  or  operators  of  the 
several  sciences  —  if  they  may  all  be  termed 
sciences  —  expressed  by  words  ending  in  logy  :  •• 
Archeology,  Ornithology, 

Astrology,  Osteology, 

Conchology,  Theology, 

Craniology,  Philology, 

Geology,  Phrenology, 

Mineralogy,  Physiology,  etc. 

Meteorology, 

Of  these,  one,  only,  takes  er  as  an  exclusive  ter- 
mination, namely,  astrologer.  One  takes  gian  as 
its  primary  and  customary  termination,  —  theolo- 
gian. All  the  others  take  ist  in  the  first  instance, 
as  mineralogist,  etc. ;  and  of  them,  five  others  have 
that  termination  exclusively,  —  mineralogist,  con- 
chologist,  ornithologist.,  craniologist,  and  meteorologist: 
while,  according  to  Webster,  though  hardly  accord- 
ing to  frequent  usage,  the  remainder  have  these 
alternative  variations :  — 

Theologian,  theologer,  theologist; 
Geologist,  geologian,  geologer ; 
Philologist,  philologer ; 

5* 


106  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Osteologist,  osteologer ; 
Phrenologist,  phrenologer ; 
Physiologist,  physiologer ; 
Archaeologist,  archasologian. 

Trench  uses  pliilologer  ;  and  Webster  cites  Bur- 
ton for  it,  but  notes  it  as  obsolete.  As  these  varia- 
tions seem  to  be  a  matter  of  mere  caprice,  or  even 
chance,  without  any  rule  or  reason,  it  is  unfor- 
tunate that  a  rule  is  not  generally  adopted  to 
make  the  terminations  uniform.  This  is  one  of 
the  few  cases,where  a  "  reform  "  could  lead  to  no 
serious  confusion. 

WHARF. 

The  plural  of  this  noun  is  constantly  written 
wharves;  but  that  is  incorrect.  "Wharf  is  analo- 
gous in  formation  to  dwarf,  and  takes  s,  merely,  in 
the  plural ;  dwarfs,  wharfs.  Calf  and  half  change 
the  /  to  v  in  the  plural,  and  become  calves  and 
halves.  And  this  also  is  true  of  staff,  the  plural 
of  which  is  staves  ;  but  this  latter  word  is  almost 
always  mispronounced,  being  made  to  rhyme  with 
caves  ;  the  result  of  which  is  a  confusion  between 
it  and  the  other  word  stave,  a  part  of  a  barrel, 
which  is  staves  in  the  plural.  The  pronunciation 
of  the  plural  of  staff  must  be  with  the  broad  a, 
rhyming  with  halves. 

The  Webster  quarto  of  1866  has  the  following 
comment  on  wharf :  — 

"  The  plural  of  this  word  is  generally  writ- 
ten wharves  in  the  United  States,  and  wharfs  in 


MISUSED  WORDS.  107 

England,  but  many  recent  English  writers  use 
wharves." 

This  is  a  very  easy  way  of  disposing  of  the  mat- 
ter. It  is  simply  accrediting  ignorant  usage. 
The  fact,  however,  remains,  that  wharves  is  just  as 
much  a  violation  of  correct  orthography  as  dwarves 
would  be. 

The  word  is  one  of  that  class  that  seldom 
appears  in  the  works  of  men  of  letters :  it  is  rather 
confined  to  legislative  (State  or  city)  acts,  and  to 
newspaper  comments  and  advertisements,  and 
hence  its  frequent  misspelling.  Probably  it  would 
be  difficult  to  make  good  the  statement  of  Web- 
ster's Dictionary  about  "  many  English  writers," — 
for  the  word  could  hardly  be  found  in  the  quarters 
indicated  by  that  phrase. 

PEOMISE. 

There  is  no  need  of  denning  a  word  with  which 
everybody  is  familiar  ;  but  it  is  very  often  misused 
in  conversation  and  in  the  dialogues  of  novels. 
People  say,  and  certain  authors  write,  "  I  promise 
you,  I  was  very  much  astonished."  "  So  far  from 
his  being  able  to  win,  I  promise  you,  I  think  he 
must  lose."  The  word  is  used  as  the  equivalent 
of  assure,  with  which  it  has  no  connection. 

DIRECTLY. 

Many  English  novelists  use  this  word  as  the 
equivalent  of  "  as  soon  as  "  :  thus,  "  Directly  he 
arrived,  he  called  for  ale."  "  I  gave  him  the  letter 
directly  I  saw  him." 


108  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Hitherto,  this  use  of  the  word  has  not  gained 
currency  in  the  United  States ;  and  as  it  has  been 
used  in  England  since  the  days  of  Pelham,  that  is, 
for  nearly  forty  years,  we  may  hope  to.  escape  it 
altogether. 

A  late  English  novel  has  produced  a  variation 
of  "  directly  "  in  this  sentence :  "  Immediately  the 
name  was  uttered,  the  whole  scene  of  the  railway- 
carriage  presented  itself  to  me."  The  variation  is 
no  improvement. 

THE   FIRST. 

"  The  tyrant  custom,"  as  Othello  has  it,  has 
brought  this  phrase  into  very  equivocal  associa- 
tions :  it  has  assumed  the  proportions  of  something 
very  little  better  than  slang ;  and  it  has  worked  its 
way  up  from  the  lower  stratum  of  ill-educated 
visage  to  the  pages  of  respectable  writers. 

"  I  have  yet  to  see  the  first  instance  of  a  lady's 
being  affronted  in  the  cars."  "  I  have  not  met 
with  the  first  objection  to  my  plan."  And  so  on. 

The  phrase  stands  about  midway  between  the 
painfully  ambitious  and  the  painfully  elaborate 
styles,  with  a  suspicion  of  the  painfully  emphatic 
somewhere  about.  No  good  writer  would  ever  coin 
such  a  phrase,  but  he  might  accept  it  and  pass  it 
without  much  consideration,  —  as  is  often  done. 

SENTENCES. 

As  a  rule,  good  writers  do  not  affect  long  sen- 
tences ;  and,  also  as  a  rule,  inferior  writers  do  not 


MISUSED   WORDS.  109 

undertake  them.  They  are  not  among  the  pre- 
vailing faults  of  English  composition  ;  and,  indeed, 
there  is  no  objection  to  a  long  sentence  now  and 
then,  if  it  is  properly  constructed  and  punctuated. 
Hence,  there  seems  to  be  no  occasion  for  any  ex- 
tended comment  on  that  subject.  But,  as  a  matter 
of  curiosity,  a  single  instance  is  here  quoted  from 
Trench,  in  which  something  is  omitted,  either  in 
the  way  of  words  or  of  punctuation,  that  renders 
both  the  reading  and  the  comprehension  of  the 
passage  anything  but  a  holiday  task.  It  is  taken 
from  "  English  Past  and  Present,"  —  pages  53,  54, 
Redfield's  edition,  —  and  the  entire  paragraph  is 
given,  for  the  reader's  convenience :  — 

"  Looking  at  this  process  of  the  reception  of 
foreign  words,  and  afterwards  their  assimilation  to 
our  own,  and  the  great  number  of  words  in  which 
this  work  has  been  accomplished,  we  may  trace,  I 
think,  as  was  to  be  expected,  a  certain  conformity 
between  the  genius  of  our  institutions  and  that  of 
our  language.  As  it  is  the  very  character  of  our 
institutions  to  repel  none,  but  rather  to  afford  a 
shelter  and  a  refuge  to  all,  from  whatever  quarter 
they  come,  and  after  a  while  longer  or  shorter  all 
the  strangers  and  incomers  have  been  incorporated 
into  the  English  nation,  within  one  or  two  genera- 
tions have  forgotten  that  they  were  ever  any  other 
than  members  of  it,  retaining  no  other  reminis- 
cence of  their  foreign  extraction  than  some  slight 
difference  of  name,  and  that  often  disappearing  or 
having  disappeared,  exactly  so  has  it  been  with  the 


110  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

English  language.  None  has  been  less  exclusive ; 
none  has  stood  less  upon  niceties  ;  none  has  thrown 
open  its  arms  wider,  with  a  greater  confidence,  a 
confidence  justified  by  experience,  that  it  could 
make  truly  its  own,  assimilate  and  subdue  to  itself, 
whatever  it  thought  good  to  receive  into  its 
bosom." 

The  second  sentence  is  certainly  formidable ; 
and  the  Dean  has,  in  the  preceding  sentence,  so 
placed  the  words  "  I  think,"  as  to  leave  the  reader 
in  doubt  whether  they  relate  to  what  immediately 
precedes,  or  to  what  follows  them. 

BUSINESS. 

Why  should  this  word  be  pronounced  biz-ness  ? 
Usage  and  all  our  lexicographers  agree  in  pro- 
nouncing 

Lazy,  la-zi-ly,  la-zi-ness, 
Easy,  ea-si-ly,  ea-si-ness, 
Weary,  wea-ri-ly,  wea-ri-ness, 
Hardy,  har-di-ly,  har-di-ness, 

and  so  on.     Why,  then,  should  they  not  pronounce 
Busy,  bus-i-ly,  bus-i-ness  ? 

No  person  can  doubt  that  the  original  pronunci- 
ation of  business  must  have  been  analogous  to  that 
of  the  similarly  formed  words  here  cited,  and  of 
many  more  that  might  be  cited ;  and  if  that  were 
the  fact,  its  present  pronunciation  in  two  syllables 
is  a  corruption,  and  is  therefore  a  proper  subject 
for  criticism. 


'MISUSED  WORDS.  Ill 

An  attempt  to  introduce  a  similar  change  in  the 
pronunciation  of  other  words,  as 

Laze-ness, 

Ease-ness, 

Were-ness, 

Hard-ness, 
would  be  laughed  at  by  everybody. 

USUAL, 

which  is  now  usually  treated  in  the  same  way  as 
"  business,"  namely, 

U-zhal, 

has  not  yet  received  the  sanction  of  our  lexicog- 
raphers ;  but,  judging  from  experience,  it  soon 
will  do  so. 

In  the  mean  time,  would  it  not  be  well  for  the 
great  number  of  people  who  persist  in  saying 
u-zhal)  to  consider  how 

Mu-chal  and 

Perpet-chal 

would  sound  as  substitutes  for 

Mu-tu-al  and 
Pet 


HUMBLE. 

The  pronunciation  of  this  word  has  been  very- 
much  discussed,  and  it  remains  unsettled.  It  is 
a  more  important  point  than  is  the  pronunciation 
of  some  other  words,  because  the  word  is  in  con- 
stant use  in  the  Episcopal  Church  service ;  which 


112  '  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

renders  a  want  of  uniformity  very  annoying  to 
church-going  people. 

Dean  Alford  is  very  much  in  earnest  about  this 
word  ;  but,  unfortunately,  on  the  wrong  side.  He 
says :  — 

"  We  still,  sometimes  even  in  good  society,  hear 
'ospital,  'erb,  and  'umble,  —  all  of  them  very  offen- 
sive, but  the  last  of  them  by  far  the  worst  when 
heard  from  aii  officiating  clergyman.  The  English 
Prayer  Book  has  at  once  settled  the  pronunciation 
of  this  word  for  us  Dy  causing  us  to  give  to  God 
our  humble  and  hearty  thanks  in  the  general  thanks- 
giving. Umble  and  hearty  few  can  pronounce  with- 
out a  pain  in  the  throat ;  and  umble-an-arty  we 
certainly  never  were  meant  to  say  ;  /mmble  and 
hearty  is  the  only  pronunciation  which  will  suit  the 
alliterative  style  of  the  prayer.  If  it  be  urged 
that  we  have  an  humble  and  contrite  heart,  I  answer, 
so  have  we  the  strength  of  an  horse.  The  following 
are  even  more  *  decisive  :  holy  and  humble  men  of 
heart ;  thy  humble  servants,  —  not  thine.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  believe  that  this  pronunciation  can  long 
survive  the  satire  of  Dickens  in  David  Copper- 
field." 

Passing  by  the  sneer  of  the  Dean'  at  wha^t  he 
"  still  sometimes  hears  in  good  society,"  —  which 
sneer,  he  may  be  assured,  is  reciprocated  by  those 
who  have  a  right,  equal  with  his,  to  their  own 
opposite  opinion,  —  his  argument  may  be  thus 
stated :  — 

*  Does  the  Dean  hold  that  decisive  is  an  adjective  that  admits  of 


MISUSED   WORDS.  113 

I.  The  English  Prayer  Book  is  the  end  of  the 
law  in  modern  pronunciation. 

II.  "  Umble  and  hearty  "  gives  people  a  pain  in 
the  throat. 

III.  "  We  never  were  meant  to  say  umble-an- 
arty." 

IY.  JSiimble  and  Aearty  is  the  only  pronuncia- 
tion which  will  suit  the  alliterative  style  of  the 
prayer. 

V.  An  humble,  etc.,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose, 
because  an  horse  is  somewhere  in  the  Bible,  or  else- 
where. 

VI.  Umble  cannot  survive  the  satire  of  Dickens. 
In  reply  to  which,  one  may  venture  to  say,  — 

I.  The  Prayer  Book  is  no  authority  at  all. 

II.  "  Umble  and  hearty  "  does  not  give  people  a 
pain  in  the  throat ;  and  if  it  did,  'onest  and  happy 
would  have  the   same   effect;    and  then,  as  the 
Frenchman  said  about  "  the  facts,"  "  so  much  the 
worse  for  the  throat." 

III.  The  assumption  that  we  must  say  'arty  if 
we  say  'umble,  is  nonsense. 

IV.  To  say  that  "  humble  and  hearty  "  is  allit- 
erative, is  to  assume  the  point  in  question  ;  and  to 
say  that  the  authors  of  the  Prayer  Book  intended  it 
to  be  alliterative,  is  another  assumption.    How  does 
the  Dean  know  that  they  intended  any  such  thing  ? 
—  especially,  when, 

V.  The  fact  of  their  placing  an  before  humble  in 
another  sentence  proves  their  opinion  to  have  been 
exactly  opposite  to  the  Dean's.     As  to  the  an  horse 


114  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

of  the  Bible,  —  if  the  Dean  credits  it  to  the  Bible, 
—  pshaw ! 

VI.  Umble  probably  will  survive  the  satire  of 
Dickens. 

Webster's  synopsis  of  orthoepy  shows  that  umble 
is  authorized  by  Perry,  Walker,  Knowles,  Smart, 
and  Cull ;  and  that  Worcester  and  Cooley  respec- 
tively accredit  loth  humble  and  umble.  The  author- 
ities, therefore,  are  strongly  against  the  Dean.. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.  1J5 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH. 

NUMEROUS  references  to,  and  quotations  from, 
this  book  have  been  made  in  the  preceding  pages  ; 
but  it  requires  further  and  more  particular  consid- 
eration ;  because  it  has  been  extensively  circulated 
in  the  United  States,  and  has  been,  to  a  certain 
extent,  adopted  as  a  text-book.  This  is  fortunate, 
so  far  as  its  author  is  correct  in  his  views.  Many 
of  his  precepts  are  of  great  value ;  and  they,  com- 
bined with  his  illustrations  and  his  generally  accu- 
rate style,  will  render  substantial  service  in  correct- 
ing popular  errors,  and  staying,  in  some  degree,  the 
tide  of  popular  corruption. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  whatever  his  book  con- 
tains of  a  doubtful  or  erroneous  character,  ought 
to  be  carefully  exposed,  so  that  its  effects  may  be 
prevented ;  for  his  faults  will  find  both  admirers 
and  imitators. 

Before  proceeding  in  the  task  of  such  exposure, 
the  author,  or  compiler,  of  this  (his  own)  book 
deems  it  proper  to  say :  — 

First,  That  Dean  Alford  first  published  his 
"  Queen's  English  "  in  the  consecutive  numbers  of 
an  English  weekly  paper,  and  that  he  afterward 
collected  them  into  a  volume  ; 


116  GOOD  ENGLISH.     . 

Secondly,  That  the  volume  now  before  the  pres- 
ent writer  bears  a  London  and  New  York  imprint, 
is  dated  1866,  and  is  designated  as  one  of  the 
"tenth  thousand"  of  copies  already  published; 
and, 

Thirdly,  That,  although  from  the  Dean's  state- 
ments, passim,  in  the  "  Queen's  English,"  it  seems 
that  his  book  has  been  very  frequently  criticised  in 
England,  not  a  word  of  such  criticism,  except  such 
as  the  Dean  himself  quotes,  has  ever  been  seen  by 
the  present  writer ;  —  a  statement  which  must 
relieve  him  from  the  charge  of  having  know- 
ingly gone  over  the  same  ground  as  the  English 
critics  ;  and  also  from  that  of  having  borrowed 
their  strictures. 

The  object  of  the  "  secondly  "  of  the  foregoing 
paragraphs  is  to  show  that  the  Dean  can  plead 
neither  haste  nor  inadvertence  in  his  present  work , 
and  that  he  may  fairly  be  held  responsible  for  every 
error  it  contains,  —  if  it  contains  any. 

Several  of  what  the  present  writer  claims  to  be 
errors  have  already  been  designated ;  but  there  is 
one  subject  to  which  the  Dean  has  devoted  a  num- 
ber of  paragraphs  ;  which,  if  discussed  at  all,  must 
be  treated  at  some  length. 

The  Dean  says,  in  paragraphs  159,  160 :  — 

"  The  one  rule  which  is  supposed  by  the  ordinary 
rhetoricians  to  regulate  the  arrangement  of  words 
in  sentences  is  this :  that  those  parts  of  a  sentence 
which  are  most  closely  connected  in  their  meaning, 
should  be  as  closely  as  possible  connected  in  posi- 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     117 

tion."  And  he  then  quotes  Blair's  somewhat  am- 
plified statement  of  the  same  rule. 

"  Now,  doubtless,"  he  continues,  "  this  rule  is  in 
the  main  and  for  general  guidance,  a  good  and 
useful  one ;  indeed,  so  plain  to  all  that  it  surely 
needs  no  inculcating.  But  there  are  more  things 
in  the  English  language  than  seem  to  have  been 
dreamt  of  in  the  philosophy  of  the  rhetoricians. 
If  this  rule  were  uniformly  applied,  it  would  break 
down  the  force  and  the  living  interest  of  style  in 
any  English  writer,  and  reduce  his  matter  to  a 
dreary  and  dull  monotony.  For  it  is  in  exceptions 
to  its  application  that  almost  all  vigour  and  char- 
acter of  style  consist.  Of  this,  I  shall  give  abun- 
dant illustration  by  and  by." 

In  a  subsequent  paragraph,  referring,  however, 
to  the  same  subject,  the  Dean  quotes  from  the 
Edinburgh  Review:  — 

"  If  a  man  writes  in  a  way  which  cannot  be  mis- 
understood by  a  reader  of  common  candour,  he  has 
done  all,  as  regards  clearness,  that  can  be  expected 
of  him.  To  attempt  more,  is  to  ask  of  language 
more  than  language  can  perform :  the  consequences 
of  attempting  it,  any  one  may  see  who  will  spend 
an  hour  with  the  statutes  at  large :  — 

"  — Jack  was  very  respectful  to  Tom,  and  always 
took  off  his  hat  when  he  met  him : — Jack  was  very 
rude  to  Tom,  and  always  knocked  off  his  hat  when 
he  met  him. 

"  Will  any  one  pretend  that  either  of  these  sen- 
tences is  ambiguous  in  meaning,  or  unidiomatic  in 


118  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

expression  ?  Yet  critics  of  the  class  now  before  us 
are  bound  to  contend  that  — 

«  —  Jack  showed  his  respect  by  taking  off  Tom's 
hat ;  or  else,  that  he  showed  his  rudeness  by  knock- 
ing off  his  own. 

"It  is  useless  to  multiply  examples ;  no  book 
was  ever  written  that  could  stand  a  hostile  exami- 
nation in  this  spirit ;  and  one  that  could  stand  it, 
would  be  totally  unreadable." 

It  would  certainly  seem  that  this  —  from  a  man 
who  has  taken  the  trouble  to  write  a  book  called 
"  A  Plea  for  the  Queen's  English,"  in  which  book 
he  has  with  great  force  contended  for  purity  and 
accuracy  of  style  —  is  rather  startling.  But  later 
in  the  book,  paragraphs  364,  365,  wherein  he  has 
the  newspapers  for  antagonists,  he  takes  the  oppo- 
site side  of  the  same  question :  — 

"  Just  let  me,  as  I  pass,  notice  one  defence  which 
has  been  deliberately  set  up  for  English  of  this  kind. 
It  has  been  said  that  one  who  sits  in  his  study  wri- 
ting at  leisure,  may  very  well  find  time  to  look  about 
him  and  weigh  the  structure  of  his  sentences ;  but 
the  contributors  of  articles  to  the  daily  press  are 
obliged  to  write  always  in  a  hurry,  and  have  no 
such  opportunities  of  consideration. 

"  Now  this  plea  either  fails  in  its  object  of  ex- 
cusing the  practice  complained  of,  or  it  proves  too 
much.  If  it  fails,  it  does  not  assign  sufficient  cause 
for  the  phenomenon :  if,  as  I  believe,  it  is  not  mere 
haste  which  causes  a  man  to  write  such  English  as 
this,  but  deficiency  in  his  power  of  putting  thoughts 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     119 

into  words  :  it  proves  too  much  if  it  really  does  suf- 
ficiently *  excuse  the  writers :  for,  if  such  writing 
is  the  inevitable  result  of  the  hasty  publication  of 
these  critiques,  why  is  not  more  time  given  for  their 
production,  and  why  are  not  more  pains  bestowed 
on  them  ?  For  surely  it  is  an  evil  for  people  to  be 
daily  accustomed  to  read  English  expressed  thus 
obscurely  and  ungrammatically ;  it  tends  to  con- 
fuse thought  and  to  deprive  language  of  its  proper 
force,  and  by  this  means  to  degrade  us  as  a  nation 
in  the  rank  of  thinkers  and  speakers." 

A  proper  estimate  of  the  value  of  these  conflict- 
ing statements  will  presently  be  undertaken,  by 
the  simple  process  of  quoting  the  several  examples 
given  by  the  Dean  in  illustration  of  his  two  posi- 
tions, accompanied  by  his  explanatory  and  concur- 
rent remarks.  Previously  to  making  those  quota- 
tions, it  is  proper  to  remark  that  the  Dean  usually 
speaks  of  those  who  concur  with  him  as  "friends," 
"correspondents,"  or  " critics ";  while  he  frequent- 
ly designates  his  censors,  or  those  who,  he  imagines, 
might  be  such,  as  '•'•pedants.'''' 

1.  "  In  a  Somersetshire  paper,  I  saw  that  a  man 
had  his  legs  burned  by  sitting  for  warmth,  and  fall- 
ing asleep,  on  the  top  of  a  lime-kiln.  The  lime  was 
called  the  seething  mass  (to  seethe  means  to  boil,  and 
sod  or  sodden  is  its  passive  participle) ;  and  it  was 
said,  he  would  soon  have  been  a  calcined  corpse, 
which  I  take  it  would  have  been  an  unheard-of 
chemical  phenomenon." 

*  Is  not  "excuse"  sufficient,  without  " sufficiently "? 


120  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

2.  "  Iii  the  same  paper  I  read  the  following  ele- 
gant sentence:    'Our  prognostications   as  regards 
the  spirit  of  the  young  men  here  to  join  the  Stor- 
gusey  rifle-corps  proves  correct.'     The  same  paper, 
in  commenting  on  the  Hopley  case,  speaks  through 
a  whole  leading  article  of  corporeal  punishment.     I 
may  mention  that,  in  this  case,  the  accused  person 
figures  throughout,  as  so  often  in  provincial  papers, 
as  a  demon  incarnate,  and  a  fiend  in  human  shape" 

3.  "  In  the  London  Morning  Chronicle's  account 
of  Lord  Macaulay's  funeral  occurred  the  following 
sentence :  '  When  placed  upon  the  ropes  over  the 
grave,  and  while  being  gradually  lowered  into  the 
earth,  the  organ  again  pealed  forth.'      Here,  of 
course,  on  any  possible  grammatical  understanding 
of  the  words,  it  was  the  organ  which  was  placed 
over  the  grave,  and  was  being  lowered  into  the 
earth." 

4.  "  After  one  of  Mr.  Glaisher's  balloon  ascents, 
we  read  that,   '  After  partaking  of  a  hearty  break- 
fast, the  balloon  was  brought  into  the  town  amidst 
the  cheers  and  congratulations  of  the  major  part  of 
the  inhabitants.'     They  may  well  have  applauded 
a  balloon  which  had  performed  so  unheard-of*  a 
feat." 

5.  "  In  a  leading  article  of  the  Times,  not  long 
since,  was  this  beautiful  piece  of  slipshod  Eng- 
lish: 'The  atrocities  of  the  middle  passage,  which 

*  Not  "  unheard-of "  surely ;  for  if  the  Dean  had  not  heard  of  it 
(or  read  of  it,  which  is  the  same  thing)  how  could  he  write 
about  it? 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     121 

called  into  action  the  Wilberforces  and  Clarksons 
of  the  last  generation,  were  not  so  fully  proved, 
and  were  certainly  not  more  harrowing  in  their 
circumstances,  than  are  the  iniquities  perpetrated 
upon  the  wretched  Chinese.' 

"  Here,  you  will  observe,  we  are,  by  the  form 
of  the  sentence,  committed  to  the  combination  of 
were  not  so  fully  proved  ....  than.  This  is  a 
fault  into  which  careless  writers  constantly  fall,  — 
the  joining  together  *  two  clauses  with  a  third, 
whose  construction  suits  the  latter  of  them,  but  not 

the  former The  Times' s  writer  might  have 

said,  —  were  not  so  fully  proved  as  are  the  iniqui- 
ties perpetrated  upon  the  wretched  Chinese,  and 
were  certainly  not  more  harrowing  in  their  circum- 
stances." 

The  Dean  then  quotes  the  contents  of  two  posted- 
up  handbills,  and  a  sentence  on  the  back  of  a  rail- 
road ticket ;  but  no  more  sentences  from  the  news- 
papers. That  is  to  say,  in  legal  phrase,  so  far  as 
the  newspapers  are  concerned,  "  that  is  the  Dean's 
case  " ;  and,  really,  there  is  not  much  of  it. 

Observe  the  scope  of  the  indictment :  — 

"  — if  it  is  not  mere  haste  which  causes  a  man 
to  write  such  English  as  this,  ....  if  such  writing 
is  the  inevitable  result  of  the  hasty  publication  of 
these  critiques^  ....  English  thus  expressed  .... 
tends  to  degrade  us  as  a  nation,"  etc. 

*  Will  the  Dean  defend  the  omission  of  o/here,  -"the  joining 
together  of  two  clauses  "  ? 

t  In  paragraph  380,  the  Dean,  while  giving  some  concluding 
6 


122  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

And  the  sum  total  of  his  case,  on  trial, — for  his 
complaint,  here,  is  not  about  misused  words,  but 
about  ill-constructed  sentences,  —  is  this :  — 

Three  lines  quoted  from  a  Somersetshire  paper, 
three  lines  from  the  Morning  Chronicle,  three  lines 
from  something  not  specified,  and  six  lines  from 
the  London  Times. 

The  errors  in  those  quotations  are,  respectively, 
proves  for  prove ;  the  omission  in  the  sentence  — 
though  the  omitted  words  must  have  preceded  the 
sentence  quoted  —  of  "the  coffin  was,"  and  the 
omission  of  "it  was";  the  omission  of  an  ante- 
cedent to  "  partaking  "  ;  and  a  sentence  in  the 
Times  so  jumbled  that  nothing  but  reconstruction 
can  redeem  it. 

Well;  each  instance  is  bad  and  inexcusable, 
whether  the  writers  were,  severally,  in  haste  or 
not.  But  the  whole  together  fails  to  form  that 
array  of  specification  which  the  Dean's  formality 
of  complaint  would  lead  one  to  expect.  Besides, 
the  sentences  cited  are,  excepting  that  in  the  Times, 
mere  news  items  which  are  necessarily  made  up 
for  a  paper  by  subordinate  persons,  who  cannot  be 
called  "  editors,"  and  for  whose  language  the 
editors  cannot  properly  be  held  responsible. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  sentences  which  the 
Dean  proposes  to  defend  against  the  restriction  of 

advice  to  his  readers,  says  :  "Be  simple,  be  unaffected,"  etc.,  "in 
your  writing.  Never  use  a  long  word  when  a  short  one  will  do." 
Critiques  is  not  strictly  a  "long  word";  but,  for  the  occasion,  it  is 
a  very  large  word. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH     123 

the  rule  cited  and  commented  on,  paragraphs  159, 
160,  must  now  be  considered. 

The  Dean  prefaces  his  quoted  sentences  and 
comments,with  certain  remarks  on  emphasis ;  which 
some  writers,  and  all  good  readers,  will  be  very  apt 
to  dispute.  His  chief  point,  to  which  his  other 
remarks  are  preliminary,  is  this :  — 

"  Whenever  we  wish  to  indicate  that  a  stress  is 
to  be  laid  on  a  certain  word,  or  clause,  in  a  sen- 
tence, we  must  do  it  by  taking  that  word,  or  that 
clause,  out  of  its  natural  place  which  it  would  hold 
by  the  above  rule,"  —  that  is,  the  rule  of  para- 
graph 159,  — "  and  putting  it  into  some  more 
prominent  one." 

That  is,  it  is  the  business  of  the  writer  to  teach 
the  reader  how  to  read,  by  violating  the  rule  of 
grammar,  paragraph  159. 

When  a  writer  lays  down  such  a  principle  as 
that,  one  may  expect,  as  lago  says,  to  "see  an 
answerable  sequestration." 

And  now,  for  the  Dean's  instances  of  necessary 
transposition. 

Paragraph  "  163.  Take,  as  an  example,  the 
words  Tie  restored  me  to  mine  office :  where  the  words 
are  arranged  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  law. 
But  suppose  a  distinction  is  to  be  made  between 
the  narrator,  who  had  been  restored  to  office,  and 
another  man  who  had  been  very  differently  treated. 
Of  course,  we  might  still  observe  the  rule,  and  say, 
He  restored  me  to  mine  office,  and  he  hanged  Am  ; 
but  the  sentence  becomes  thus  (and  it  is  to  this 


124  GOOD   ENGLISH. 

that  I  request  the  reader's  attention)  a  very  tame 
one,  not  expressing  the  distinction  in  itself,  nor 
admitting  of  being  so  read  as  to  express  it  sharply 
and  decisively.  Now  let  us  violate  the  rule,  and 
see  how  the  sentence  reads,  Me  he  restored  unto 
mine  office,  and  him  he  hanged.  Thus  wrote  our 
translators  of  Genesis  xli.  13,  and  they  arranged 
the  words  rightly.  No  reader,  be  his  intelligence 
ever  so  little,  can  help  reading  this  sentence  as  it 
ought  to  be  read." 

Paragraph  "  164.  And  let  there  be  no  mistake 
about  this  being  a  violation  of  the  rule.  The 
words  nearest  connected  are  restored  and  me,  which 
it  governs  ;  hanged  and  him,  which  it  governs.* 
When  I  take  me  out  of  its  place  next  restored,  and 
begin  the  sentence  with  it,  letting  the  pronoun  he 
come  between  them,  I  do  most  distinctly  violate 
the  rule,  that  those  words  which  are  most  nearly 
connected  in  the  sense  should  be  also  most  nearly 
connected  in  the  arrangement.  I  have  purposely 
chosen  this  first  instance  of  the  simplest  kind,  to 
make  the  matter  clear  as  we  advance  into  it.  Let 
us  take  another.  St.  Peter,  Acts  ii.  23,  says  to  the 
Jews,  speaking  of  our  Lord,  Him,  being  delivered 
by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  G-od, 

*  A  person  who  has  any  knowledge  of  grammar  will  know 
what  the  Dean  means  here.  But  the  Dean  says  elsewhere  that 
that  is  not  sufficient ;  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  writer  to  make  his 
words  convey  his  meaning.  Now,  what  does  that  sentence  mean  to 
the  apprehension  of  one  not  familiar  with  the  rule  that  an  active 
verb  governs  an  objective  case?  What  is  "it"?  and  what  does 
ft  "  govern  "  ? 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     125 

ye  have  taken,  and  ly  wicked  hands  have  crucified 
and  slain.  Here  we  have  the  pronoun  Him  placed 
first  in  the  sentence,  and  at  a  considerable  distance 
from  the  verbs  that  govern  it.  Yet  who  does  not 
see  that  the  whole  force  of  that  which  was  intend- 
ed to  be  conveyed  by  the  sentence  is  thus  gained, 
and  could  not  otherwise  be  gained?  Arranged 
according  to  the  common  rule,  the  sentence  would 
have  been,  Ye  have  taken  him,  being  delivered  ly  the 
determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  G-od,  and 
by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain  him,  and 
the  whole  force  and  point  would  have  been  lost." 

Paragraph  "  165  "  recites  the  nature,  use,  and 
importance  of  a  parenthesis,  but  avers  that  "  ev- 
ery parenthesis  is  a  violation  of  the  supposed  uni- 
versal rule  of  position."  * 

Paragraph  "  166.  Thus,  for  example,  I  am 
narrating  a  circumstance  which,  when  it  happened, 
excited  my  astonishment.  Undoubtedly,  the  natu- 
ral order  of  constructing  the  sentence  would  be  to 
relate  what  happened  first,  and  my  surprise  at  it 
afterwards. f  I  was  looking  at  a  man  walking  on 

*  This  averment  is  a  mere  assumption.  The  rule  is,  that  "  the 
parts  connected  in  meaning  should  be  connected  in  position  as 
closely  as  possible.  The  Dean  says  elsewhere,  when  commenting  on 
too  strict  an  interpretation  of  rules,  "  really,  we  do  not  write  for 
idiots  "  ;  and  the  rhetoricians,  for  whose  rule  the  Dean  has  such  con- 
tempt, would  probably  retort  his  remark ;  and  add,  that  "  as  close- 
ly as  possible  "  means  as  closely  as  possible,  and  no  closer.  They 
never  intended  the  rule  to  hold  against  exceptions,  and  a  parenthe- 
sis is  not  necessarily  a  violation  of  the  rule. 

t  Perhaps  it  would.  But  the  "  natural  order  "  is  one  thing,  and 
the  rule  is  another  thing.  Hence,  the  Dean  is  quite  out  of  the 


126  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

the  bank  of  the  river,  when  he  suddenly  turned  about, 
and  plunged  in,  to  my  great  surprise.  But  who 
does  not  see  the  miserable  way  in  which  the  last 
clause  drags  behind,  and  loses  all  its  force  ?  We 
therefore  take  this  clause  out  of  its  place,  and  in- 
sert it  before  that  to  which  it  applies,  and  with 
which  it  ought  to  be  constructed  ;  we  word  the  sen- 
tence thus :  I  was  looking  at  a  man  walking  on  the 
bank  of  the  river,  when,  to  my  great  surprise,  lie  sud- 
denly turned  round  and  plunged  in.  I  need  not 
further  illustrate  so  common  a  transposition." 

Paragraph  "  169.  One  of  my  censors  quoted  as 
faulty  in  this  respect  the  following  sentence,  which 
occurred  in  these  notes :  I  said  that  certain  per- 
sons fall,  from  their  ignorance,  into  absurd  mistakes. 
The  parenthetical  clause  here  is,  from  their  igno- 
rance. My  censor  would  amend  it  thus :  certain 
persons,  in  consequence  of  their  ignorance,  fall  into 
absurd  mistakes.  Now,  this  is  not  what  I  wanted 
to  say  ;  at  least,  it  is  a  blundering  and  roundabout 
way  of  explaining  it.  The  purpose  is,  to  bring  the 
fact  stated  into  prominence  ;  and  this  is  done  by 

record.  He  is  not  illustrating  the  rule  of  the  rhetoricians,  — who 
say  nothing  about  "  natural  order,"  —  hut  a  rule  of  his  own,  en- 
acted for  the  occasion.  And,  observe,  he  assumes  the  necessity  of 
telling  his  whole  story  in  one  sentence,  apparently  for  the  very 
purpose  of  violating  the  rule,  though  the  rule  does  not  touch  his 
case,  because  the  rule  does  not  prohibit  a  parenthetical  line.  The 
sentence,  as  he  amends  it,  is  the  best  possible  form ;  but  the  amend- 
ment is  not  a  violation  of  the  rule.  The  very  phraseology  of  the 
rule,  "  as  closely  as  possible,"  intimates  that  immediate  contact,  or 
proximity,  is  not  always  "  possible,"  with  proper  deference  to  other 
considerations. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     127 

making  the  verb /aft  immediately  follow  its  subject, 
certain  persons."  And  so  forth,  —  for,  really,  the 
remainder  of  this  paragraph  is  mere  twaddle.  The 
Dean's  "  censor  "  was  quite  right  in  saying  that 
the  sentence,  as  written,  is  liable  to  this  misin- 
terpretation :  persons  fall  from  ignorance,  into  ab- 
surd mistakes  ! 

Paragraph  "  170 In  Deuteronomy  vi.  11, 

Israel  is  admonished,  When  thou  shalt  have  eaten 
and  be  full,  beivare  lest  thou  forget  the  Lord.  We 
all  know  that  this  means,  when  thou  shalt  have  eaten 
and  shalt  be  full." 

Paragraph  "  171 Take  another  example, 

Acts  xxii.  4 :  And  I  persecuted  this  way  unto  the 
death.  This  violates  the  supposed  law  of  arrange- 
ment,* and  falls  under  the  charge  of  ambiguity. 
....  Take  again  verse  29 :  Then  they  departed  from 
him  which  should  have  examined  him.  Now,  we  all 

know  what  this  means I  must  not,  however, 

forget  that  some  of  my  correspondents  find  it  con- 
venient to  depreciate  the  language  and  grammar 
of  our  authorized  version  of  the  Scriptures.  I 
would  recommend  them  to  try  the  experiment  of 

amending  that  language I  have  often  tried 

the  experiment!  and  found"  that,  generally,  it  was 
unsuccessful. 

This  is  the  end  of  the  Dean's  citations  on  that 
side   of  the  question ;   and  the  reader  can  judge 

*  The  Dean  does  not  say  how  it  violates  the  law. 
t  "Tried  the  experiment"!    That  is,  tried  the  trial,  "experi- 
ment "  being  a  '.rial :  say,  made  the  experiment. 


128  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

whether  they,  with  the  Dean's  assisting  explana- 
tions and  reasoning,  prove  what  is  said  in  paragraph 
160  (page  hereof  117),  that  if  the  rule  of  the 
rhetoricians  "  were  uniformly  applied,  it  would  break 
down  the  force,  etc.,  of  any  English  writer,  and 
reduce  his  matter  to  a  dreary  and  dull  monotony. 
For  it  is  in  exceptions  to  its  application  that  almost 
all  vigour  and  character  of  style  consist.  Of  this 
I  shall  give  abundant  illustration  by  and  by." 

Perhaps  this  concluding  promise  has  been  ful- 
filled. The  reader  can  judge  of  that,  too,  having 
before  him  all  the  "  illustrations  "  given  by  the 
Dean.  There  are  but  seven  of  them.  The  present 
writer  is  unable  to  see  that  the  Dean  has  made  out 
his  case  —  the  Dean's  case  —  on  his,  the  Dean's, 
own  showing.  But  the  Dean  cannot  be  left  to  his 
own  showing  ;•  and  the  question,  how  far  he  has 
the  better  of  the  rhetoricians,  must  be  considered. 

One's  first  impression,  on  reading  the  quotations 
and  comments,  is,  that  the  Dean  is  disingenuous, 
and  does  not  write  in  good  faith  in  support  of  his 
views.  For  example,  he  elaborately  defends  the 
style  of  the  Bible,  when  nobody  assails  it  but  him- 
self; that  is,  he  quotes  no  criticisms  on  it,  but  he 
officiously  applies  the  rhetoricians'  rule  to  it.  That 
was  unnecessary;  and  his  instances  are  not  in 
point.  The  translators  of  our  Bible  completed 
their  work  in  the  year  1611 ;  and  yet  the  Dean 
attempts  to  try  the  force  of  a  modern  rhetorical 
rule  by  its  applicability  to  the  style  of  those  writers. 
And  then,  he  requires  people  to  take  his  word  for 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     129 

it,  that  the  language  of  the  translators  is  above  the 
reach  of  rules  and  beyond  the  power  of  improve- 
ment, —  which  may  be  true,  and  may  not  be  true. 
The  Dean  certainly  offers  no  proof  of  its  being 
true. 

But  what  if  it  were  true  ?  Does  the  Dean 
propose  the  quaint  style  of  the  translators  as  a 
model  for  present  English  composition  ?  Does  he. 
write  in  that  style  ?  or,  would  he  have  others  do 
so? 

He  makes  a  great  point  of  the  power  of  the 
transposed  pronoun  in  Acts  ii.  23  :  "  Him,  being 
delivered,"  etc.  Does  he  claim  that  the  force  of 
-  this  transposition  is  intrinsic,  independently  of  the 
sacred  Antecedent  ?  If  he  does  riot,  he  writes  in 
bad  faith.  If  he  does,  the  same  power  of  trans- 
position must  ensue  in  other  cases ;  as  Acts  xvi.  3 : 
"Him  would  Paul  have  to  go  forth  with  him  "  ; 
Romans  xiv.  1 :  "Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith, 
receive  ye  "  ;  Philippians  ii.  23  :  "Him,  therefore, 
I  hope  to  send  presently."  Will  the  Dean  claim 
that  in  these  three  instances  "  the  whole  force  of 
that  which  was  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  the  sen- 
tence is  thus  gained,  and  could  not  otherwise  be 
gained  "  ? 

And  let  the  question  be  here,  parenthetically, 
put  to  the  Dean :  — 

You  say,  "  which  was  intended  to  be  conveyed 
by  the  sentence,"  —  how  do  you  Mow  the  "  inten- 
tion "  of  the  translators  ?     They  wrote  according 
to  the  style  of  the  age  in  which  they  wrote,  and  the 
6*  x 


130  GOOD  ENGLISH.      • 

transposition,  which  the  Dean  cites  so  confidently, 
was  not  in  exception,  but  in  conformity,  to  the 
style  of  the  period,  and  to  the  translators'  own 
style  in  other  places :  as,  see  the  three  above-cited 
instances  and  many  more  which  may  be  found  in 
the  Bible. 

Then,  as  to  Genesis  xli.  13.  Is  "  Me  he  restored 
unto  mine  office,  and  him  he  hanged,"  so  infinitely 
superior  to  "  He  restored  me  to  mine  office,  and  he 
hanged  him,"  as  the  Dean  avers  it  to  be?  He 
states,  magisterially,  and  as  a  matter  of  course 
which  everybody  must  admit,  that  the  latter  is  a 
"  very  tame  "  sentence,  and  neither  "  expresses  the 
distinction  in  itself,  nor  admits  of  being  so  read  as 
to  express  it  sharply  and  decisively."  But,  "  by 
what  authority  says  he  those  things  "  ?  And  ob- 
serve, his  "  saying  those  things,"  and  some  other 
things,  is  what  he  relies  on,  for  discrediting  the 
rule  of  the  rhetoricians. 

The  bad  faith,  or  the  inconsistency,  of  the 
Dean  is  further  shown  in  his  comment  on  "  When 
thou  shalt  have  eaten  and  be  full"  etc. ;  and  on 
"  Then  they  which  should  have  examined  him," 
etc.  He  says  of  each  of  those  sentences,  "  We 
all  know  what  this  means";  and  he  offers  that 
remark  in  reply  to  criticisms,  not  that  have  ever 
been  made,  but  which  he  says  "  the  captious  and 
childish  critic  may  make"  (!)  on  the  construction 
of  those  passages. 

If  the  Dean  seriously  means  to  say  that  the  gram- 
mar of  «  When  thou  shalt  have  eaten  and  be  full" 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     181 

is  justified  by  the  fact  that  "  we  all  know  what  it 
means,"  how  can  he  permit  himself  to  denounce  tho 
London  Times  for  "  degrading  the  British  people  as 
a  nation"  by  its  complicated  sentence  on  "the  mid- 
dle passage,"  "  Wilberforce,"  etc.  ?  Does  the  Dean 
mean  to  say,  or  to  insinuate,  that  "  we  do  not  know 
what  the  Times  means  "  in  that  sentence  ? 

Finally,  the  Dean  really  ought  to  remember  his 
own  position,  enunciated  in  paragraph  149  a:  "1 
may  once  for  all  notice  a  fallacious  way  of  arguing 
into  which  the  sciolists  who  would  legislate  for  our 
language  are  continually  betrayed.  It  consists  in 
assuming  that,  of  two  modes  of  expression,  if  one 
be  shown  to  be  right,  the  other  must  necessarily  be 
wrong.  Whereas,  very  often  the  varying  expres- 
sions are  equally  legitimate,  and  each  of  them  full 
of  interest,  as  bearing  traces  of  the  different  sources 
from  which  our  language  has  sprung." 

As  to  the  rule  of  the  rhetoricians.  It  may  be 
good  and  it  may  be  bad.  At  least,  there  is  this  in 
its  favour :  it  is  founded  in  common  sense ;  it  has 
nad  the  approval  of  the  literary  world  for  many 
years ;  and  it  has  not  often  been  assailed.  Prob- 
ably, it  will  survive  the  arguments,  the  ridicule, 
and  the  misrepresentations  of  the  worthy  Dean  of 
Canterbury. 

And  now,  as  to  the  style  of  the  Dean's  book,  taken 
as  a  whole.  He  must  be  held  responsible  for  every 
error  in  it ;  because,  as  has  been  shown,  he  has  had 
full  leisure  for  its  revision.  The  errors  are,  never- 
theless, numerous ;  and  the  shortest  way  to  exhibit 
them  is  in  a  tabular  form  :  — 


132  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Paragraph 
4.  "into  another  land  than"  should  be  "  into  a  land  other  than." 

16.  "we  do  not  follow  rule  in  spelling  other  words,  but  cus- 
tom," should  be,  "  we  do  not  follow  rule,  but  custom,  in 
spelling,"  etc. 

18.  "  The  distinction  is  observed  in  French,  but  never  appears 

to  have  been  made,"  etc.    Read,  "  appears  never  to  have 

been  made." 
61.  "  rather  to  aspirate  more  than  less,"  should  be  "  to  aspirate 

more  rather  than  less." 
9.  "It  would  be  just  as  easy  to  give  examples,"  etc.     "Just 

as  easy  "  as  what  f 
13.  "  matters  of  controversy  which  have  been  still  retained." 

What  is  the  use  of  «  still "  ? 
13.  "  I  have  been  unwilling  to  part  with  arguments,"  etc.    Why 

have  been  ?    Is  he  not  so,  still  ? 

19.  "  I  had  imagined  that  their  endeavour  ....  had  entirely 

failed,"  etc.     Omit  the  first  "  had." 
34.  "  If  we  had  wished  to  keep,"  etc.     Why  had  ? 
39.  in  note.    "  I  had  supposed  this  form,  etc.,  and  had  ascribed 

it  to,"  etc.     Why  had  f 

19.  "no  very  large  figure":  read  "no  very  large  number." 
21.  "  A  comely  thing  for  those  thatMke  it":  read,  lt  who  like  it." 
28.  "  But  if  we  do"  etc.     Do  v;hat  ?  grammatically  speaking. 
30.  "but  did  not  apply."    Apply  to  what?  grammatically 
speaking.     This  phrase  is  precisely  parallel  in  ambi- 
guity to  those  which  the  Dean  ridicules  in  paragraph 
174:  which,  see. 

82.  "  and  to  them  we  do  not  superadd  another  s"  etc.  See 
paragraph  380, — "  never  use  a  long  word  when  a  short 
one  will  do." 

38.  "has  been  justified  on  the  ground,"  etc.    See  note  on  page 

75  of  this  book. 

39.  "  thus  much  indulgence  as  to  confess,"  etc.     Query? 

9.  "  It  is  said  also  only  to  occur  three  times,"  etc.    Read, 

"  occur  only  three  times." 

44.  « this  doubling  only  takes  place  in  a  syllable,"  etc. :  read, 
"  takes  place  only." 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     133 

142.  "  which  can  only  be  decided  when  those  circumstances 
are  known  " :  read,  "  can  be  decided  only  when,"  etc. 

166.  "  I  will  only  say  that  it  produces,"  etc. :  read,  "  I  will  say, 
only"  etc. 

170.  "It  is  said  that  this  can  only  be  filled  in  thus":  read, 

"  can  bejilled  in  only  thus." 

210.  "  It  can  only  be  used  as  expressing  determination  ":  read, 
"  can  be  used  only"  etc. 

'221.  "This  ....  only  conveys  the  sense," etc. :  read,  "con- 
veys only,"  etc. 

233.  "I  can  only  regard  them  as  Scotticisms":  read,  " I  can 
regard  them  only"  etc. 

289.  "  and  also  when  it  is  only  true  of  them  taken  together": 
read,  " true  of  them  only  when  taken"  etc. 

368.  "I  can  only  deal  with  the  complaint  in  a  general  way": 

read,  " deal  with  the  complaint  only"  etc. 
86.  "  In  so  far  as  they  are  idiomatic,"  etc.   What  is  the  use  of 
in? 

142.  "  an  hotel."     Authority,  that  "  an  horse"  of  the  Bible. 

367.  "  a  hotel."     Here,  we  have  it  right. 

160.  "neither  of  which  are  taken  into  account,"  etc.  Com- 
ment, here,  is  needless ! 

354.  "This  is  fiction;  but  the  following  are  truth."  Again, 
comment  is  needless. 

171.  "fry  the  experiment";  "tried  the  experiment."    Read, 

make  and  made. 

189.  " It  would  have  been  better  if  they  had  not  repeated"  etc. 
This  should  be,  "  it  would  be  better,"  etc. 

210.  "'I  fear  I  won't'  is  an  impossible  and  unmeaning  junc- 

tion of  terms.  If  it  meant  anything,"  etc.  The  verb 
is  makes  the  case  present;  therefore  say,  "if  it  means 
anything." 

211.  " he  means  the  station-master  to  conclude"  etc.     That  is, 

very  clumsy,  if  not  worse.  Say,  "  he  intends  that  the 
station-master  shall  conclude  " ;  or,  "  he  means  to  make 
him  conclude,"  etc. 

227.  >  "unneeded."     Query,  is  that  word  needed  in  the  lan- 
273.1         guage?    It  is  not  given  in  Webster's  Dictionary. 


134  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

162.  "  at  the  risk  of  our  words  not  conveying,"  etc.  "  Words" 
should  be  in  the  possessive  case. 

189.  "  As  to  the  translators  having  often  judiciously  u^ed,"  etc. : 
say  translators',  —  that  is,  the  possessive  case. 

309.  The  fact  of  such  an  objection  having  been  made  " :  read, 
objection's. 

867.  "  owing  to  the  fact  of  a  n\$it-watchman  being  employed," 
etc.:  read,  watchman's;  and  the  same  phrase  is  re- 
peated in  the  same  paragraph. 

368.  "  as  much  as  possible  for  every  word  being  understood," 
etc. :  read,  word's. 

867.  "  The  following  sentence,  occurring  in  a  hotel  advertise- 
ment," etc.  "  Occurring  ?  "  Query  ? 

345.  "  It  is  most  generally  used  of  that  very  sect,"  etc.  Why 
most  ? 

362.  "  the  joining  together  two  clauses  with  a  third,"  etc. : 
read,  "  of  two  clauses,"  etc. 

869.  "By  and  by,  a  decided  weak  point  is  detected."  The 
Dean  says,  in  paragraph  273,  "Exception  is  taken  to 
an  expression  occurring  in  these  notes,  a  decided  weak 
point.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  my  censor  is 
wrong.  A  decidedly  weak  point,  is  one  thing :  a  de- 
cided weak  point,  is  another In  the  phrase  under 

consideration,  had  I  written  a  decidedly  weak  point,  I 
should  have  spoken  of  a  point  decidedly  weak:  but, 
writing  as  I  did,  I  spoke  of  a  weak  point  of  whose  exist- 
ence there  could  be  no  doubt." 

Does  the  Dean  mean  the  "existence"  of  the 
weakness  or  the  "existence"  of  the  point  ^ —  for 
those  two  concluding  lines  are  really  "  ambiguous." 
"  We  do  not  all  know  what  they  mean." 

If  he  "  means "  the  existence  of  the  point,  he 
means  nonsense.  If  he  means  the  existence  of  the 
weakness,  his  word  "  decided  "  is  no  better  than  his 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH.     135 

censor's,  "  decidedly,"  for  the  purpose  of  express- 
ing that  meaning:  and,  grammatically,  his  word 
is  wrong  ;  and  his  censor's,  right. 

The  only  method  by  which  the  Dean  could  escape 
his  censor  is  this  ;  namely,  by  saying  that  his  phrase 
means  a  point,  which,  ly  competent  authority,  has  been 
decided  to  be  weak.  The  "point"  then,  to  wit,  the 
weak  point,  would  be  placed  among  res  adjudicatas, 
—  it  would  be  a  decided  point,  or  a  point  finally 
decided. 

The  writer  of  this  volume,  after  his  manuscript 
of  it  was  finished  and  handed  to  his  publisher, 
read,  for  the  first  time,  Mr.  Washington  Moon's 
book  called  "  The  Dean's  English."  He  finds  that, 
in  some  particulars,  his  own  strictures  have  been 
anticipated  by  Mr.  Moon ;  especially,  the  "  decided 
weak  point";  the  pronunciation  of  humble;  and 
the  "  Americanism  "  progress.  It  seems  that  the 
neuter  verb  to  progress  is  recorded  in  Bailey's 
Universal  Dictionary,  published  in  1755, — which 
finishes  that  argument  against  Dean  Alford. 

Mr.  Moon's  book  is  a  masterpiece ;  at  least,  in 
its  exposure  of  the  blunders  of  Dean  Alford.  Its 
very  title  "  speaks  volumes."  And  any  one,  after 
reading  it,  can  see  how  well  deserved  is  the  com- 
mendation it  has  received  from  the  British  peri- 
odical and  newspaper  press.  That  commendation 
would  seem,  from  Mr.  Moon's  citations,  to  have 
been  nearly  universal.  And,  to  paraphrase  Dean 
Alford's  comment  on  the  probable  effect— he  being 
judge  —  of  Dickens's  satire  on  'umble,  "it  is  diffi- 


136  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

cult  to  believe  that  the  Queen's  English  can  long 
survive  the  satire  of  the  Dean's  English" 

Mr.  Moon,  however,  has  himself  fallen  into  griev- 
ous errors,  while  exposing  those  of  his  antagonist ; 
and,  on  the  whole,  it  is  safe  to  say,  that,  in  the 
matter  of  mere  style,  there  is  but  little  to  choose 
between  the  two  writers.  Each  of  them  is  very 
self-complacent,  very  "  English,"  and  very  uncon- 
scious of  the  beam  in  his  own  eye. 

Mr.  Moon  has  shown  great  critical  acumen  in 
detecting  the  errors  of  The  Queen's  English,  —  pity 
that  he  could  not  have  presented  them  to  his  read- 
ers in  what  he  so  confidently  assumes  that  he  him- 
self has  mastered ;  namely,  "pure  English." 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  137 


WEBSTER'S  ORTHOGRAPHY. 

IP  the  representatives,  or  the  publishers,  of 
Webster's  Dictionary  had,  collectively  or  severally, 
as  much  power  to  injure  the  opponents  of  the  Dic- 
tionary, as  Webster  had  to  injure  the  language, 
the  exposure  of  Webster's  orthographical  heresies 
might  be  a  dangerous  pastime.  For  it  is  a  fact 
within  the  knowledge  of  all  persons  who  have  read 
the  occasional  criticisms  on  Webster's  orthography, 
and  the  replies  of  the  Webster  party,  as  both  have 
appeared  in  the  newspapers  and  elsewhere  for  the 
past  five-and-twenty  years,  that  the  Websterian 
replies  have  uniformly  been  bitter  in  tone,  and  have 
been  very  free  in  the  imputation  of  personal  mo- 
tives, or  interested  or  improper  motives,  on  the 
part  of  opposing  critics,  —  to  say  nothing  of  the 
unparliamentary  personalities  of  such  replies. 

The  writer  of  these  present  comments  is  fully 
warranted  in  making  them.  They  are  in  no  re- 
spect gratuitous.  In  his  capacity  as  an  occasional 
contributor  to  newspapers  and  magazines,  —  and 
anonymously,*  as  became  such  contributor, — he 

*  The  author  of  this  book  desires  to  avail  himself  of  this  first  — 
though  late  —  opportunity  of  "rising  to  a  question  of  privilege," 
as  they  say  in  Congress.  He  hopes  that  his  doing  so  will  not  be 
deemed  supererogatory. 

In  the  year  1851,  the  Hon.  James  W.  Beekman,  then  a  senator 


138  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

has  for  many  years  exposed  the  fallacies  of  Web- 
ster's "  system  "  (if  that  can  be  called  a  system 
whose  all-pervading  characteristic  is,  a  total  want 
of  system)  ;  and,  as  such  anonymous  writer,  he  has, 
on  several  occasions,  been  engaged  in  a  direct  con- 
troversy with  the  literary  and  legal  representatives 
of  the  dictionary.  And  in  such  controversies,  as 
well  as  in  the  course  of  replies  to  his  occasional 
essays  apart  from  regular  controversy,  he  has  uni- 
formly been  accused  of  unworthy  motives  in  his 
criticisms. 

The  fact  that  he  had,  and,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  could  have,  no  motive  other  than  the  interest 

in  the  New  York  Legislature,  was  appointed  chairman  of  a  Com- 
mittee on  Literature,  whose  duty  was,  among  other  things,  to  re- 
•port  on  the  expediency  of  ordering  the  introduction  of  Webster's 
Dictionary  into  the  district  schools  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Beckman,  as  chairman,  addressed  to  Irving,  Bryant,  Ban- 
croft, and  many  others,  letters  of  inquiry  as  to  the  merits  of  the 
dictionary ;  and,  in  his  report  to  the  Senate,  he  made  quotations 
from  the  answers  that  lie  received  from  those  gentlemen. 

The  author  of  this  book  was  one  of  the  number  so  addressed ; 
and.  in  his  answer,  he  discussed  the  subject  both  more  fully  and 
more  freely  than  he  might  have  done,  except  in  what  he  supposed 
was  in  some  respects  a  private  letter. 

Mr.  Beekman,  in  the  press  of  legislative  business,  availed  him- 
self of  the  systematic  form  of  that  letter,  and  quoted  it  entire ; 
forgetting  that  it  contained  one  sentence  which  should  by  no  means 
have  been  made  public.  The  act  was  one  of  mere  inadvertence  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Beckman ;  but  the  readers  of  the  published  Report, 
who  could  not  know  the  circumstances  (here,  now,  for  the  first 
time  related)  were  likely  to  consider  the  writer  of  the  letter  respon- 
sible for  what  was  entirely  improper  to  be  said  in  print.  The 
thing  was  unfortunate ;  but,  having  been  done,  there  was  no  reme- 
dy for  it. 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  139 

which  every  literary  man  has  in  resisting  the  prog- 
ress of  philological  corruption,  is  quite  imma- 
terial to  the  issue.  But  the  fact  of  such  motives' 
being  constantly  charged  upon  him,  has  always  in- 
dicated, on  the  part  of  his  accusers,  a  consciousness 
of  the  weakness  of  their  own  cause.  If  they  could 
have  answered  their  critic's  arguments,  they  would 
never  have  troubled  themselves  about  his  motives. 

The  most  elaborate  of  his  essays  on  the  subject 
was  published  in  the  Democratic  Review,  a  New 
York  monthly  magazine,  in  March,  1856.  It  was 
an  article  of  considerable  length;  yet,  it  so  pre- 
cisely hit  the  literary  public  opinion,  that  it  was 
copied  into  several  of  the  daily  and  weekly  papers 
of  New  York,  Boston,  and  Philadelphia.  The 
editor  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post  —  who  cer- 
tainly stands  among  the  best  of  American  writers, 
whether  of  prose  or  poetry  —  made  the  following 
comments  on  it :  — 

"  We  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  elsewhere 
such  full  justice  done  to  Noah  Webster's  system  of 
orthography,  under  which  the  English  language  has 
been  undergoing  a  process  of  corruption  for  the 
last  quarter  of  a  century,  as  in  an  article  which  we 
find  in  the  last  number  of  the  Democratic  Review. 
We  have  copied  it  at  length  in  our  columns,  and 
we  would  gladly  contribute  toward  the  expense  of 
having  it  read  twice  a  year  in  every  school-! louse 
in  the  United  States,  until  every  trace  of  Web- 
sterian  spelling  disappears  from  the  land.  It  is 
a  melancholy  proof  of  the  amount  of  mischief 


140  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

one  man  of  learning  can  do  to  society,  that  Web- 
ster's system  of  orthography  is  adopted  and  prop- 
agated by  the  largest  publishing  house,  through 
the  columns  of  the  most  widely  circulated  month- 
ly magazine,  and  through  one  of  the  ablest  and 
most  widely  circulated  newspapers  in  the  United 
States."  * 

Such  an  article,  so  indorsed,  could  not  be  treated 
with  silent  contempt ;  and  the  people  interested  in 
it  sent  a  communication  to  the  Democratic  Review, 
which  they  called  an  "  Answer  "  to  the  criticism  ; 
but  which,  in  the  colloquial  phrase,  "  did  n't  an- 
swer at  all."  That  "  answer  "  was  answered  ;  and, 
so  far  as  the  magazine  was  concerned,  there  the 
discussion  ended. 

It  was  the  purpose  of  the  present  writer  to  intro- 
duce, at  the  latter  part  of  this  book,  the  first  above- 
mentioned  article,  with  some  modifications,  as  he 
supposed  its  strictures  are  as  much  needed  now 
as  they  were  ten  years  ago  ;  but  a  careful  exam- 
ination of  the  last  edition  of  Webster's  Dictionary, 
1866,  leads  him  to  infer  that  several  of  his  sugges- 
tions, which  were  scouted  at  in  the  "  Answer  "  in 
the  Democratic  Review,  have  subsequently  been 
treated  with  more  consideration.  He  therefore 
finds  himself  under  the  necessity  of  modifying  his 
former  strictures,  in  order  to  adapt  them  to  the 
dictionary  as  it  now  stands. 

*  The  poet  and  satirist,  Holmes,  of  Boston,  says  of  New 
York :  — 

"  Where  their  own  printers  teach  them  how  to  spell." 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  141 

Some  preliminary  remarks  are  indispensable  to 
a  review  of  Webster's  orthography. 

It  is  an  old  and  veritable  saying  that,  "  whoever 
would  bring  home  with  him  the  wealth  of  the 
Indies,  must  first  take  out  with  him  the  wealth  of 
the  Indies  "  ;  which,  as  to  lexicographers,  may  be 
thus  paraphrased :  whoever  would  undertake  to 
reform  the  orthography  of  a  language  (which  or- 
thography was  acceptable  to  the  masters  of  the 
language  from  the  days  of  Johnson  to  the  day  of 
such  reformer),  must  bring  to  the  task  something 
more  than  the  qualities  of  a  patient,  diligent  stu- 
dent. 

If  the  usage  of  good  writers,  —  which  conven- 
ient term  will  be  used  elsewhere,  as  it  is  here,  with 
a  proviso  that  it  includes  not  merely  the  best  class 
of  men  who  write,  but  the  best  class  of  men  who 
speak,  the  language  ;  men,  who,  as  clergymen, 
lawyers,  or  statesmen,  develop  the  power  of  lan- 
guage by  their  use  of  it ;  and  who,  by  their  man- 
ner of  using  it,  show  the  world  their  capacity  to 
legislate  upon  it,  —if  the  usage  of  good  writers  is 
the  common  law  of  language,  language  is,  recipro- 
cally, in  the  guardianship  of  good  writers.  They 
are  both  its  judges  and  its  legislators. 

A  good  writer,  then,  by  virtue  of  his  natural 
gifts  and  his  acquirements,  is  something  more 
than  a  mere  student ;  because  his  intellect  has  co- 
operated with  his  industry  to  secure  the  world's 
notice.  He  is  a  good  writer  because  he  is  able  to 
write  what  the  world  recognizes  as  worth  the 


142  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

world's  attention.  Genius,  of  some  sort,  is  in- 
volved in  a  general  literary  success  ;  and  no  man 
ever  took  an  acknowledged  rank  as  a  good  writer, 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  who  was  not  able 
to  produce  something  from  within  which  he  had 
not  learned,  and  which  he  could  not  learn,  from 
poring  over  books. 

Thus  it  is,  that  a  man  who  takes  with  him  to 
the  Indies  a  cargo  adapted  to  the  Indies,  may  bring 
home  the  wealth  of  the  Indies ;  while  the  man  who 
goes  to  the  Indies  "  in  ballast "  only,  will  bring 
back  nothing  more  than  he  carried.  Also,  a  man 
who  would  undertake  to  reform  the  accepted  or- 
thography of  a  language,  without  having  first  been 
elevated,  by  his  own  acts  and  by  common  consent, 
to  the  position  of  a  judge  and  a  legislator  of  that 
language,  will  be  much  more  likely  to  injure  than 
to  improve  the  object  of  his  solicitude. 

Besides,  a  lexicographer  is  one  thing,  and  a  re- 
former is  another  thing ;  and  a  good  writer  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  either.  It  so  happened 
that  Johnson  was  an  intellectual  giant  who  could 
grasp  the  three  capacities  in  his  own  hand.  But 
Johnson's  case  was  an  exception,  and  therefore  his 
example  is  a  dangerous  one  to  follow.* 

*  Webster's  faculty  of  word-making  is  not  relevant  to  the  matter 
just  now  in  hand,  although  it  is  a  very  serious  count  in  the  indict- 
ment against  his  dictionary.  His  boast,  or  that  of  his  publishers, 
was,  that  a  certain  edition  contained  "  twelve  thousand  words  not  to 
be  found  in  any  preceding  dictionary."  Any  one  can  see  that 
such  a  result  could  never  have  been  attained,  except  by  Webster's 
dragging  in  recruits  from  all  sources,  creditable  or  discreditable 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  143 

A  lexicographer  is  one  who  writes  a  lexicon  ; 
and  "  lexicon  "  is,  as  Webster  defines  it,  "  a  vocab- 
ulary or  book  containing  an  alphabetical  arrange- 
ment of  the  words  in  a  language,  with  their  defi- 
nitions." 

A  reformer,  according  to  the  same  authority,  is 
"  one  who  effects  a  reformation  or  amendment." 

A  good  writer  is  one  whose  writing  combines 
grammatical  accuracy  with  a  style  perspicuous  and 
adapted  to  his  subject ;  and  who  so  conveys  instruc- 
tion or  entertainment  as  to  receive  the  approval  of 
the  intelligent  and  educated  part  of  the  people. 

Hence,  obviously,  the  mere  lexicographer  is  the 
secretary  of  the  good  writer.  His  duty  is  to  record, 
not  to  legislate :  to  say  what  language  is,  not  what 
it  should  be.  And  so  long  as  he  occupies  the 
secretary's  desk,  his  business  is  to  confine  himself 
to  the  secretary's  duties.  But  to  discharge  even 
those  duties  properly,  he  must  have  learning,  to 
know  what  is  correct ;  and  judgment,  discreetly  to 
weigh  all  questionable  matters  :  so  that  he  will 
follow  neither  the  vagaries  nor  the  negligences  of 
those  who  may  be,  generally,  good  writers. 

Hence,  also,  a  reformer  is  not  one  who  under- 
takes a  reform  without  the  qualities  requisite  to 
success.  Many  men  volunteer  their  services  in  the 
way  of  a  reform,  who  prove  to  be  mere  innova- 

as  the  case  might  be.  And  this  reminds  one  of  Johnson's  remark 
to  Boswell  on  the  proper  duties  of  a  lexicographer  :  "  Sir,  my  busi- 
ness was  to  explain  words,  not  to  make  them."  In  that  respect  Web- 
ster would  have  done  well  to  follow  Johnson  ! 


144  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

tors.  Besides,  even  the  man  who  is  capable  of 
achieving  a  reformation,  must  first  discover  and 
show  that  a  reformation  is  needed.  His  private 
opinion  of  such  necessity  will  not  suffice.  The 
alleged  or  fancied  evil  must  be  shown  to  be  an 
evil.  And,  in  the  case  under  review,  the  judges  in 
the  premises  —  to  wit,  the  good  writers  and  their 
above-mentioned  colleagues  —  must  have  admitted 
the  evil,  before  even  the  capable  reformer  has  a 
right  to  commence  his  work.  The  burden  of  proof 
as  to  the  existence  of  the  evil — shoeing  the  neces- 
sity for  its  remedy  —  is  on  the  reformer.  An  at- 
tempt to  reform,  where  no  reform  is  needed,  can 
produce  nothing  but  mischief.  It  is  applying  a 
remedy  where  there  is  no  disease.  "  The  whole 
need  not  a  physician."  Or,  if  the  would-be  reformer 
chooses  to  say  that  English  orthography  is  not 
"  every  ivUt  whole,"  the  good  writer  might  say,  in 
much  more  homely  but  not  less  appropriate  phrase, 
"  it  does  very  well,"  and  "  it  is  better  to  let  well 
alone." 

Now,  it  is  saying  very  little  to  say,  that  the  only 
proof  ever  offered  by  Webster  of  existing  ortho- 
graphical evils,  or  of  the  need  of  their  reforma- 
tion, or  of  his  ability  to  reform  them,  was  —  his 
own  opinion  on  the  three  propositions. 

And,  as  many  persons  think  that  Webster's  claims 
to  be  ranked  among  the  good  writers  of  English, 
properly  so  called,  or  among  men  of  high  intellect 
and  high  literary  cultivation  and  accomplishment, 
are  not  great ;  and,  as  his  claims  to  the  privileges 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY. 


145 


and  prerogatives  of  a  reformer  have  yet  to  be  es- 
tablished ;  he,  thus  far,  stands  before  the  world  as 
a  mere  lexicographer,  whose  work  may  be  the  best 
in  the  world,  but  whose  work  must  rest  on  its  own 
merits,  and  not  on  his  pretensions. 

The  things  to  be  considered,  then,  are,  the  value 
of  Webster's  opinion,  and  the  true  character  of  the 
work  which  his  opinion  led  him  to  produce. 

The  value  of  Webster's  opinion  on  the  proper 
manner  of  spelling  words  may  be  estimated  by  the 
way  Webster  spelled  words, — so  far,  at  least,  as  he 
ran  to  extremes  that  are  entirely  beyond  all  debat- 
able ground,  and  from  which  he  was  forced  to  re- 
treat, by  public  scorn  and  derision.* 

The  following  words,  and  many  others  not  here 
specified,  come  within  that  category  :  — 


1806. 

1828. 

1838. 

Aker 

Aker 

Aker. 

Gag  (keg) 

Gag 

Gag. 

Croud 

Crowd 

Crowd. 

Chimist 

Chimist 

Chimist. 

Determin 

Determine 

Determine. 

Disciplin 

Discipline 

Discipline. 

Fantom 

Fantom 

Fantom. 

Fether 

Feather 

Feather. 

Groop 

Group 

Group. 

Grotesk 

Grotesk 

Grotesk. 

*  Observe,  here,  that  Webster  published  his  first  dictionary  in 
1806.  He  was  at  that  time  forty-eight  years  of  age:  a  period 
when  his  opinions  on  orthography  could  not  have  been  otherwise 
than  very  deliberately  formed. 

7  * 


146 


GOOD  ENGLISH. 


Gillotin 

Guillotin 

Guillotine. 

Hainous 

Hainous 

Hainous. 

Hagard 

Hagard 

Hagard. 

Hand 

Island 

Island. 

Imagin 

Imagine 

imagine. 

Insted 

Instead 

Instead. 

JLeperd 

Leopard 

Leopard. 

Lether 

Leather 

Leather. 

Maiz 

Maiz 

Maize. 

Neger 

Neger 

Neger. 

Porpess 

Porpess 

Porpess. 

Requisit 

Requisite 

Requisite. 

Soe 

Sew 

Sew. 

But 

Soot 

Soot. 

Suveran 

Suveran 

Sovereign. 

Steddy 

Steady 

Steady. 

Thred 

Thread 

Thread. 

Thret 

Threat 

Threat. 

Thum 

Thumb 

Thumb. 

Tung 

Tung 

Tung. 

Vant 

Vant 

Vant. 

Wimmen 

Women 

Women. 

Zeber 

Zebra 

Zebra,  etc.,  etc. 

What  can  be  said  of  the  orthographical  wonders 
of  that  first  column  ?  Do  they  not,  for  all  time, 
discredit  the  mere  opinions  of  their  author,  in  the 
matter  of  spelling  ?  Do  they  not  even  cast  a  shade 
of  suspicion  over  his  attempts  to  speak  authorita- 
tively on  any  department  of  philology? 

A  comparison  of  the   three   columns  —  which 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  147 

carry  the  "  system  "  of  Webster  nearly  to  the  date 
of  his  death  —  will  show  how  perseveringly  he  ad- 
hered to  his  errors.  The  same  spirit,  exerted  in  a 
better  cause,  might  have  been  productive  of  good. 
But  Webster  could  not  be  made  to  understand  the 
folly  of  his  career.  His  failure  to  force  on  the 
public  the  adoption  of  his  extreme  views,  was  at- 
tributable to  their  obtuseness,  not  to  his  perversity. 
Scott  says :  "  The  miscarriage  of  an  experiment  no 
more  converts  the  political  speculator,  than  the 
explosion  of  a  retort  undeceives  an  alchemist." 
And  the  orthographical  speculator  stands  in  the 
same  predicament.  Webster  clung  "  to  each  par- 
ticular" of  his  experiments  —  for  they  were  noth- 
ing else  than  experiments  on  the  public  endurance 
— with  the  tenacity  of  a  child  to  a  toy,  or  a  miser 
to  a  coin.  He  never  abandoned  a  spelling  that  he 
dared  to  retain. 

Fortunately,  his  successors  have  taken  a  wiser 
course.  They  have  virtually  repudiated  his  entire 
system  of  etymology  and  definitions,  and  have  re- 
tracted much  of  his  spelling.  The  quarto  of  1854 
is  a  decided  modification  of  all  precedent  Webste- 
rian  orthography,  and  that  of  1866  goes  still  further 
in  the  right  direction.  Only  three  of  the  spellings 
of  that  first  column  are  to  be  found  in  the  latter 
work,  —  caff,  (which,  being  interpreted,  means 
fag!)  fantom,. and  porpess:  the  last,  however,  is 
"  put  under  a  bushel "  by  the  brief  direction,  "  see 
porpoise" 

In  the  same  book,  Webster's  change  of  offence  to 


148  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

offense  is  retained  undisturbed;  although  defence 
and  pretence  are  placed,  severally,  in  the  embrace 
of  a  bracket  with  their  illegitimate  cousins,  defense 
and  pretense.  What  offence  "  offence"  has  commit- 
ted that  caused  it  to  be  denied  the  same  privilege, 
is,  with  truly  Websterian  inconsistency,  left  unex- 
plained. 

Webster  attempted  to  justify  his  change  of  the  c 
for  the  s  in  those  three  words,  —  which  change,  be 
it  observed,  was  part  of  his  "  system  "  of  assump- 
tion that  great  changes  were  needed,  and  that  he 
was  authorized  to  make  them  (he  being  judge), — 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  "  the  only  three 
words"  (of  a  "certain  class,"  which  class  would 
be  found  very  wwcertain  were  one  to  seek  the  mean- 
ing of  the  expression)  "  remaining,"  that  had  not 
been  similarly  changed  by  usage.  Hence,  "  it  be- 
came necessary  "  (!)  for  him  to  change  these.  He 
added  the  further  reason,  that  the  derivatives  of 
these  words  require  the  s ;  as,  offensive,  defensive, 
etc. 

The  compilers  of  the  edition  of  1866,  in  under- 
taking the  defence  of  the  same  change,  say  that  it 
is  warranted  by  etymology,  as  the  Latin  roots  of 
the  three  words  have  the  s,  as  offensa,  defensa, 
etc. ;  and  they  add  that  the  "  s  is  used  in  all  their 
derivatives  " :  which  latter  remark  is  of  question- 
able accuracy,  considering  that  the  book  which 
contains  it  contains  the  words  pretentious,  preten- 
tiously, pretentiousness,  each  thus  having  a  t  instead 
of  an  s  in  the  third  syllable.  The  compilers,  how- 


WEBSTER'S  ORTHOGRAPHY.  149 

ever,  say  nothing  about  "  the  only  three  remaining 
words." 

The  fallacy  of  the  reasons  of  both  "Webster  and 
his  successors  can  be  shown  at  once  by  the  citation 
of  the  word  sentence.  /Sentence  is  derived  from  the 
Latin  sententia  ;  its  root  therefore  has  no  c ;  and  its 
derivatives  are  sententious,  sententiously ',  etc.,  which 
also  have  no  c.  Now,  if  the  rule  of  these  gentlemen 
—  that  etymology  controls  the  spelling  of  a  primi- 
tive, and  that  the  primitive  controls  the  spelling  of 
its  own  derivatives  —  has  any  force  ;  it  must  be  of 
general  application,  and  must  not  be  limited  to 
such  words  as  their  caprice  may  select  for  its 
subjects. 

It  will  be  shown,  in  subsequent  paragraphs,  that 
Webster  entirely  repudiates  the  validity  of  the  rule 
(that  primitives  control  the  spelling  of  their  own 
derivatives)  by  reversing  the  rule.  He  makes  it 
"work  both  ways,"  —  which,  in  common  parlance, 
is  said  to  be  proof  of  a  good  rule  ;  but  which  will 
hardly  do,  in  its  serious,  practical  application  to 
philological  principles.  But,  in  the  mean  time,  one 
may  remark,  that  if  the  rule  justifies  the  change  of 
offence  to  offense,  it  certainly  requires  the  change 
of  sentence  to  sentents :  there  we  have  the  t  of  the 
root  and  of  the  derivatives  and  "  the  pronuncia- 
tion is  not  endangered  !  " 

Something  more,  here,  on  the  rule  of  Webster, 
that  etymology  controls  orthography.  If  Webster 
appeals  to  that  rule  in  one  case,  he  must  submit  to 
it  iii  other  cases.  He  cannot  be  permitted  to  use 


150  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

or  reject  it  intermittently,  or  spasmodically,  at  the 
caprice  of  the  moment.  And  be  it  observed  —  for 
the  following  illustration  involves  that  point  —  that 
Webster  did  not  limit  his  changes  of  orthography 
to  words  whose  spelling  had  given  rise  to  objections 
or  difficulties. 

Profit  is  derived  "  directly,"  and  without  change 
of  spelling,  from  the  French  profit ;  and  Webster 
gives  several  roots,  including  the  Latin  profectus  : 
all  of  which  are  spelled  with  one/. 

Proffer  is  derived,  in  the  same  way :  French, 
prqferer;  ~L&tm,proferre;  also  with  one/. 

Why,  then,  did  Webster  leave  those  two  words 
as  he  found  them  spelled,  one  with  one  /  and  the 
other  with  two  ?  —  proffer,  profit.  Certainly,  the 
pronunciation  of  profit  is  as  much  "endangered" 
by  one  /  as  enrol  is  with  one  Z,  —  and  much  more 
so. 

Couple  is  derived  directly  from  the  French  couple, 
therefore  its  orthography  is  unimpeachable.  But 
supple  is  derived  from  the  French  souple;  and 
where  is  Webster's  authority,  on  his  principles,  for 
leaving  it  spelled  with  two  p's?  Besides,  how 
could  he  leave  couple  as  he  found  it,  considering 
the  "danger  of  mispronunciation"?  Webster 
should  have  changed  it  to  cupple,  —  on  his  alter- 
nating rule. 

In  Webster's  Dictionary  of  1866,  the  following 
words  are  retained  in  their  exclusiveness,  that  is, 
they  are  not,  severally, united  by  brackets  with  or- 
thodox orthography :  — 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY. 


151 


Biasing, 

Counselor, 

Counseling, 

Dueling, 

Graveling, 

Jeweler, 

Worshiper, 

Worshiping, 


Enroll, 

Install, 

Enthrall, 

Fulfill, 

Instill, 

Dullness, 

Skillful, 

Willful. 


And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  following  words  are 
thus  alternatively  spelled  in  brackets ;  a  process 
which  at  least  gives  the  student  his  choice  between 
the  right  and  the  wrong  spelling,  although  it  gives 
him  no  direction  by  which  his  choice  might  be 
guided. 


Axe            coupled 

with 

Ax. 

Comptroller 

« 

Controller. 

Contemporary 

tt 

Cotemporary. 

Ambassador 

a 

Embassador. 

Gauntlet 

j( 

Gantlet. 

Manoeuvre 

(( 

Manoeuver. 

Mould 

(( 

Mold. 

Moult 

it 

Molt. 

Plough 

tt 

Plow. 

Staunch 

a 

Stanch. 

Ton 

« 

Tun. 

Bevelling 

n 

Beveling. 

Cancelling 

tt 

Canceling. 

Cavilling 

it 

Caviling. 

Drivelling 

tt 

Driveling. 

Labelling 

it 

Labeling. 

152 


GOOD  ENGLISH. 


Libelling 

coupled  with 

Libeling. 

Levelling 

« 

Leveling. 

Marshalling 

Marshaling. 

Modelling 

u 

Modeling. 

Panelling 

1C 

Paneling. 

Perilling 

« 

Periling. 

Ravelling 

« 

Raveling. 

Rivalling 

a 

Rivaling. 

Revelling 

tt 

Reveling. 

Shovelling 

n 

Shoveling. 

Travelling 

u 

Traveling. 

Traveller 

it 

Traveler. 

Calibre 

u 

Caliber. 

Centre 

n 

Center. 

Fibre 

ti 

Fiber. 

Accoutre 

tt 

Accouter. 

Lustre 

n 

Luster. 

Meagre 

u 

Meager. 

Metre 

It 

Meter. 

Mitre 

u 

Miter. 

Ochre 

11 

Ocher. 

Sabre 

it 

Saber. 

Sceptre 

«( 

Scepter. 

Sombre 

tt 

Somber. 

Theatre 

11 

Theater. 

This  presentation  of  alternative  spelling  is 
great  concession  on  the  part  of  Webster's  succes- 
sors ;  and  it  is  a  favour  for  which  the  advocates  of 
correct  orthography  may  as  well  be  thankful.    Yet 
one  cannot  help  looking  the   gift  horse  in   the 


WEBSTER'S  ORTHOGRAPHY.  153 

mouth ;  and  wondering  that  men  of  education  could 
carry  so  far  the  delusion  that  there  can  be  two 
correct  ways  of  spelling  any  one  word. 

Besides,  on  what  principle,  or  by  what  rule,  do 
they  discriminate  between  the  two  lists  ?  Why 
should  the  words  in  the  first  column  of  the  first 
list, 

Biasing, 

and  the  others  ending  in  ing,  with 

Counselor, 

Jeweler, 

Worshiper, 

be  refused  the  alternative  double  spelling,  when  it 
is  given  to  beveling  and  to  sixteen  other  words  (in 
the  second  list)  of  precisely  similar  construction  ? 
Again :  those  gentlemen,  in  their  prefatory  essay 
on  orthography,  say,  as  Webster  said  in  his  es- 
say, that  certain  words  must  be  excepted  from 
the  Websterian  rule  of  change,  because  changing 
them  would  endanger  their  pronunciation;  how 
then  can  they  justify  their  retention  of  Webster's 
change  of 

Bevelling  into  Beveling, 


Gravelling  " 
Drivelling    " 
Labelling    " 
Libelling     " 
Levelling     " 
Modelling   " 
Panelling     " 
7* 

Graveling, 
Driveling, 
Labeling, 
Libeling, 
Leveling, 
Modeling, 
Paneling, 

154  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Ravelling  into  Raveling, 
Revelling     "     Reveling, 
Shovelling   "     Shoveling, 
Travelling   "     Traveling, 
Traveller     "     Traveler ; 

when,  beyond  all  dispute,  the  words  so  altered  are 
liable  to  be  pronounced  in  two  syllables  ?  Indeed, 
if  the  ordinary  rule  of  pronunciation  is  followed, 
they  must  all  be  pronounced  in  two  syllables,  as 
are  shaveling,  starveling,  etc.  Who  is  to  recon- 
cile the  arbitrary  rule  that  the  superfluous  I  must 
be  stricken  out  —  Webster  being  the  judge  of  the 
superfluity  —  with  the  rule  that  it  must  not  be 
stricken  out,  when  the  striking  out  endangers  the 
pronunciation  ?  Can  anything  be  more  ridiculous 
than  this,  —  even  supposing  that  the  ridiculousness 
of  it  were  the  worst  of  it  ? 

Webster's  strongest  reliance  for  justification  in 
expunging  the  second  I  from  travelling,  etc.,  and 
that  which  his  successors  the  most  confidently 
bring  forward  as  altogether  conclusive  in  the  mat- 
ter, is  this  remark  of  Walker  :  — 

"  Dr.  Lowth  justly  observes  that  an  error  fre- 
quently takes  place  in  the  words  worshipping,  coun- 
selling, etc.,  which,  having  the  accent  on  the  first 
syllable,  ought  to  be  written  worshiping,  counseling. 
An  ignorance  of  this  rule  has  led  many  to  write 
bigotted  for  bigoted;  and  from  this  spelling  has  fre- 
quently arisen  a  false  pronunciation.  But  no  letter 
seems  to  be  more  frequently  doubled  improperly 
than  Z.  Why  we  should  write  libelling,  revelling, 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  155 

travelling,  and  yet  offering,  suffering,  reasoning,  I 
am  totally  at  a  loss  to  determine." 

The  first  obvious  point  of  reply  to  that  quota- 
tion is  the  transparent  fallacy  of  its  last  sentence. 
Walker  overlooks,  as  Webster  and  his  disciples  do, 
the  requirements  of  pronunciation  ;  and  that,  too,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  very  subject  of  pronun- 
ciation is  mentioned  in  the  preceding  sentence. 
What  Walker  is  "  totally  at  a  loss  to  determine," 
and  what  Webster  and  his  disciples  are  innocent  of 
discovering,  is  the  simple  fact,  that,  while  Walker's 
illustrations,  offering,  suffering,  and  reasoning,  could 
not  be  mispronounced  with  the  single  consonant, 
libeling,  leveling,  and  traveling  almost  inevitably 
would  be  so. 

But,  secondly,  —  and  this,  which  is  equally  ob- 
vious to  every  one  but  the  alchemists,  is  also  inno- 
cently overlooked,  —  the  very  fact  of  Walker's 
making  his  remark  is  so  far  from  justifying  Web- 
ster's innovation,  that  it  actually  condemns  it. 
WJiy  did  not  Walker  do  what  he  intimated  should  be 
done  ?  "  Ay,  there  's  the  rub  "  !  Walker  knew, 
what  Webster  did  not  know,  that 

"  The  attempt,  and  not  the  deed,  confounds  us." 

He  knew  that  the  attempt  would  fail,  and  produce 
nothing  but  confusion,  —  as  it  has  done  !  Many 
men  will  recommend  others  to  undertake  what  they 
themselves  take  very  good  care  not  to  undertake. 
Besides,  Walker  only  suggested;  he  did  not  rec- 
ommend. 


156  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Has  not  the  civilized  world  agreed  in  thinking 
that  the  name  of  our  country  is  a  blunder  ?  And 
that  instead  of  "  the  United  States  of  America,"  it 
should  have  been  called  almost  anything  else  ?  — 
something  that  would  identify  it  with  its  great 
discoverer,  or  its,  perhaps,  greater  deliverer  ?  And 
have  not  men  of  mark  "  recommended  "  a  change  ? 
Irving  wrote  a  very  elaborate  recommendation  to 
that  effect,  and  others  have  preceded  or  followed 
him.  And  what  then  ?  Their  reasoning  as  to  what 
should  have  been  is  unimpeachable  ;  but  reflection 
shows  that  what  they  think  might  be,  is  impractica- 
ble. The  essential  difference  between  this  illustra- 
tion and  Walker's  is,  that  the  attempt  to  change 
the  name  of  our  country  might  perhaps  have  been 
harmless,  if  undertaken,  though  it  would  certain- 
ly have  failed :  whereas  Webster's  experiment  has 
not  only  failed  to  secure  any  general  adoption,  but 
it  has  wrought  serious  mischief,  by  unsettling  an 
order  of  things  which,  if  not  sufficiently  uniform 
to  meet  his  approbation,  at  least  satisfied  the  major 
ity  of  literary  men. 

Again  :  Webster  and  his  successors  announce  the 
danger  of  mispronunciation,  arising  from  misspell- 
ing—  "as  they  count"  misspelling  —  instal,  en- 
thral, and  enrol,  in  the  derivatives  :  that  is,  they  say 
instalment,  enthralment,  and  enrolment  must  be 
spelled  installment,  enthrallment,  and  enrollment, 
lest  those  words  should  otherwise  be  mispro- 
nounced :  they  do  not  say  how  they  would  be  mis- 
pronounced, if  spelled  with  one  I. 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  157 

The  short  answer  to  that  averment  is  a  flat  de- 
nial :  the  words  would  not  be  mispronounced  if  not 
altered.  Who  ever  heard  of  a  mispronunciation 
of  instalment? 

But  the  gentlemen  do  not  stop  with  adding  the  I 
to  the  derivatives.  They  reverse  the  rule  of  primi- 
tives' governing  the  spelling  of  derivatives,  and 
coolly  ordain  that,  inasmuch  as  instalment,  enthral- 
ment,  and  enrolment  have  been  changed  to  secure 
their  proper  pronunciation,  —  they  being  judges 
thereof,  and  having  made  the  change,  —  instal,  en- 
thral, and  enrol  must  also  take  the  double  I,  —  in- 
stall, enthrall,  and  enroll,  —  because  the  derivatives 
are  so  spelled! ! 

And  yet,  after  they  have  taken  all  that  trouble 
to  make  their  case  perfectly  absurd,  they  leave  con- 
trol and  controlment  without  change,  —  as  if  those 
two  words  differed  in  the  slightest  degree  from 
enrol  and  enrolment! 

Nor  is  even  that  all.  Dull,  fill,  full,  and  still  are 
monosyllabic  words,  spelled  with  a  double  terminat- 
ing consonant ;  but  good  usage  has  for  a  century  or 
two— more  or  less  — dropped  that  second  I  in  com- 
position, as  it  was  formerly  termed ;  that  is,  in  the 
derivatives  of  those  words,  as,  dulness,  fulness,  ful- 
fil, instil,  and  distil  But  Webster  didn't  approve 
of  that  condition  of  things.  It  needed  a  reform. 
Accordingly,  he  decreed, 

Dullness, 
Fullness, 
Fulfill, 


158  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

Instill, 
Distill. 

That  is,  he  reversed  back  again  the  rule  of  prim- 
itives' governing  derivatives.  Why  he  did  n't  spell 
fulfil,  fullfill,  is  not  explained;  for,  as  that  is  a 
word  in  which  two  primitives  are  brought  together, 
there  is  no  reason  why  either  should  yield  an  "ell" 
to  the  other. 

The  inconsistency  of  Webster's  spelling  counsellor 
with  one  I,  and  chancellor  with  two,  has  often  been 
commented  on ;  and  it  has  never  been  replied  to 
but  with  the  sort  of  reasoning  that  one  might  ex 
pect  from  the  alchemist,  after  the  explosion  of  his 
ninety-ninth  retort.  The  solemn  explanation  which 
Webster  made,  and  which  his  successors  reiterate, 
is,  that  chancellor  is  derived  directly  from  the  Latin 
cancellarius  ! 

As  to  which,  in  the  first  place  ;  it  has  already 
been  shown,  and  it  might  be  shown  a  thousand 
times  if  the  game  were  worth  the  candle,  that 
Webster  alternately  recognizes  and  repudiates  that 
rule  of  derivation  with  perfect  indifference. 

As  to  which,  in  the  second  place ;  Webster,  in 
giving  the  etymologies  of  the  two  words,  cites, 
among  others,  Latin  consiliarius  and  French  con- 
seiller  for  counsellor;  and  Latin  cancellarius  and 
French  chancelier  for  chancellor.  After  which  cita- 
tions, it  is  simply  absurd  for  him  to  allege  that  one 
of  the  words,  any  more  than  the  other,  came  directly 
from  the  Latin  ;  or,  that  either  of  them  did  so. 

And  as  to  which,  in  the  third  place;  if  Webster 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.         .  159 

wished  to  make  people  believe  that  chancellor  did 
not  come  "  directly  from  the "  French,  he  would 
have  done  better  to  omit  chancelier  from  his  ety- 
mologies :  for,  verily,  the  h  of  that  root  places  the 
matter  quite  beyond  the  power  of  Webster's  denial 
of  the  "  direct "  French  origin.  Where  did  the  h 
of  chancellor  come  from,  if  not  from  the  French 
root  ?  If  chancellor  came  immediately  from  the  Lat- 
in cancellarius  (not  through  the  French),  why  did 
he  not  spell  it  cancellor  ?  On  his  theory,  he  might 
spell  one  of  the  words  chounselor ;  as  well  as  the 
other,  chancellor.  And  touching  the  point  of  "  di- 
rect derivation  from  the  Latin,"  it  is  to  be  observed 
that,  so  far  as  we  know,  England  had  no  "  chan- 
cellor "  previously  to  the  Norman  conquest ! 

After  that  exhibition,  it  seems  trifling  to  point 
out  such  an  inconsistency  in  Webster  as  his  spell- 
ing amour  with,  and  enamor  without,  the  u. 

But  that  brings  up  the  subject  of  Webster's  spell- 
ing honour,  favour,  etc.,  without  the  u. 

Webster  says  that  this  class  of  words  "  come  to 
us  from  the  Latin  through  the  French,"  honneur, 
faveur,  etc.,  etc.  But  here,  as  elsewhere,  it  is  bet- 
ter to  admit  the  direct  derivation  from  the  French, 
on  the  principle  that  the  last  indorser  is  first  re- 
sponsible. He  would  not  have  said  "from  the 
Latin  through  the  French,"  if  there  had  been  no 
disputed  orthography  in  the  case.  The  "  superflu- 
ous letter  "  was  his  real  object. 

But  as  the  usage  of  good  writers  had,  up  to 
the  time  of  Webster's  innovation,  recognized  the 


160  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

French  etymology  by  sanctioning  the  u  in  "the 
remaining  words"  from  which  Webster  thought 
proper  to  strike  it  out,  Webster  would  have  done 
better  to  leave  the  words  as  he  found  them.  In 
his  capacity  of  lexicographer,  he  had  no  right  to 
go  behind  the  certificate  of  the  good  writers  both 
in  England  and  the  United  States,  as  to  the  French 
derivation.  As  an  antiquary,  he  might  have  gone 
to  the  ends  of  the  earth  for  roots,  if  he  saw  fit. 
But  all  this  was  done  to  justify  his  assumption 
that  the  u  is  a  superfluous  letter.  And  he  holds 
it  to  be  superfluous  by  the  same  style  of  reason- 
ing, probably,  that  led  him  to  find  the  gh  of  plough 
superfluous,  namely,  that  the  gh  is  silent. 

It  would  be  easy  to  show  that  such  reasoning 
proves  too  much :  for  if  the  theory  of  superfluous 
letters  is  admitted  as  to  plough,  it  cannot  stop 
there.  It  would  expunge  silent  letters  from  all 
other  words ;  and  that  process  would  plough  a  fur- 
row through  the  language,  that  no  disciple  of  Web- 
ster is  likely  to  approve. 

The  fallacy  of  Webster's  position  as  to  honour, 
favour,  etc.,  goes  beyond  even  that :  for  it  does  just 
so  happen  that  the  proscribed  and  "  superfluous  " 
u  is  not  a  silent  letter.  The  o  is  the  silent  letter  in 
those  words.  We  say  hon-ur,  not  hon-or. 

Besides,  why  did  Webster  limit  his  hostility,  or 
his  partiality,  —  whichever  you  please,  —  to  one 
class  of  words  with  the  u  ?  Serious,  curious,  furi- 
ous, famous,  etc.,  etc.,  have  also  the  u,  and  they 
come  to  us,  as  Webster  might  say,  "  from  the  Latin 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  161 

through  the  French."  Why  did  Webster  spare  the 
u  in  them  ?  To  be  sure,  in  them,  as  in  honour,  u 
is  not  the  silent  letter.  But  why  not  treat  the  two 
classes  of  words  alike  ?  Why  change  honour,  favour, 
etc.,  and  leave  serious,  curious,  etc.,  as  they  are? 
Certainly,  if  the  u  is  not  silent,  the  o  is  so :  why 
not  spell  them  serius,  curius  ? 

Again,  in  such  words  as  guide,  guard,  guilt, 
build,  etc.,  the  u  actually  is  silent.  Why  is  it 
spared  there  ? 

As  to  theatre,  lustre,  centre,  sepulchre,  and  so  on, 
Webster  transposes  the  termination  into  er,  be- 
cause, although  in  every  instance  the  etymology 
forbids  it,  —  theatron,  Greek  ;  theatrum,  Latin ; 
theatre,  French ;  teatro,  Spanish  and  Portuguese ; 
lustrum,  Latin  ;  lustre,  French  ;  lustre,  Spanish ; 
lustra,  Italian  ;  kentron,  Greek  ;  centrum,  Latin  ; 
centre,  French  ;  centra,  Spanish,  Portuguese,  and 
Italian  ;  sepulcrum,  Latin  ;  sepulcre,  French  ;  sepul- 
cro,  Spanish  and  Portuguese,  and  so  on,  — because 
(to  repeat,  after  that  long  parenthesis,  made  long 
in  order  to  make  the  case  clear)  cider,  chamber,  and 
certain  other  words  have  been  changed  in  that  way, 
they  having  — that  is,  some  of  them  having --a 
similar  etymology ;  and  Webster's  opinion  hap- 
pened to  be  that  the  former  should  correspond  to 
the  latter ! !  Could  anything  be  more  monstrous 
than  that,  even  if  that  were  all  ?  But  that  is  not 
all. 

The  words  that  Webster  transposed  have—  which 
the  others  have  ^/  —  derivatives  into  which  he 


162  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

could  not  carry  his  transposition.     These  are  some 
of  them :  — 

Theatre  requires  Theatrical, 
Sepulchre     "       Sepulchral, 
Lustre          "       Lustrous, 
Centre          "        Central, 
and  so  on. 

So  that,  after  Webster  had  transposed  the  ter- 
mination of  the  primitives  to  conform  to  his  rule, 
he  was  compelled  to  transpose  it  back  again  to  con- 
form to  a  spelling  that  he  dared  not  violate ;  though 
it  would  be  hard  to  say  why  he  dared  not  spell 
theaterical,  sepulcheral,  centeral,  lusterous,  after  he 
had  spelled  theater,  scpulcher,  center,  and  luster.  By 
not  changing  the  derivates,  he  again  reaffirmed  the 
position  that  primitives  do  not  control  derivatives. 

In  the  so-called  "  Answer "  in  the  Democratic 
Review,  the  representative  of  Websterism  hazard- 
ed the  position  that  terminations  in  er  do  not 
necessarily  retain  that  form  in  the  derivative,  be- 
cause the  derivatives  of  enter,  wonder,  monster,  and 
disaster  are,  by  common  consent,  spelled  entrance, 
monstrous,  wondrous,  disastrous. 

At  first  sight,  that  seemed  to  be  a  good  point ; 
and,  at  any  rate,  it  was  adroitly  put.  But  it  proves, 
on  examination,  to  be  only  a  Websterian  fallacy. 
We  do  certainly  spell  entrance,  but  we  also  spell 
entered,  entering.  As  to  the  other  three  words,  a 
reference  to  Richardson  shows  that  they  were  orig- 
inally spelled  ivonderous,  monsterous,  disasterous  ; 
afterward,  wond'rous,  monstrous,  disastrous;  and 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  163 

that  now  they  are  merely  exceptional  abbreviations ; 
for,  almost  (if  not  quite)  every  other  word  in  the 
language  terminating  in  er,  including  wonder,  re- 
tains that  termination  in  the  derivative ;  as, 

Wonder,  Wondering,  etc. 
Flatter,    Flattering,  etc. 
Offer,       Offering,  etc. 

Utter,      Utterance,  etc. 
Temper,  Temperance,  etc. 
Further,  Furtherance,  etc. 

Danger,  Dangerous,  etc. 
Prosper,  Prosperous,  etc. 
Murder,  Murderous,  etc. 

Any  one  can  see  that  such  instances  could  be 
quoted  indefinitely ;  so  that  the  four  exceptional 
words  of  the  "Answer"  prove  nothing  at  all. 

Webster  found  practise,  the  verb,  spelled  with  an 
«,  and  the  noun,  practice,  with  a  c,  in  the  last  syl- 
lable. He  thought  proper  to  make  the  spelling  of 
the  verb  conform  to  the  spelling  of  the  noun,  and 
wrote  it  practice.  His  own  reason  is  :  "  The  dis- 
tinction in  spelling  between  the  noun  and  the  verb 
properly  belongs  only  to  words  which  are  accented 
on  the  last  syllable,  as  device  and  devise,  where  the 
verb  has  the  sound  of  ize."  The  additional  reason 
of  one  of  Webster's  accredited  representatives  — 
to  wit,  him  of  the  Democratic  Revieiv,  in  "  Answer  " 
—  is,  "  The  pronunciation  being  alike  in  noun  and 
verb,  persons  are  often  puzzled  to  recollect  which 


164  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

ought  to  have  the  c  and  which  the  s.  By  abolish- 
ing the  unnecessary  and  misleading  distinction, 
Webster  established  a  genuine  reform." 

At  first  sight,  all  that  may  seem  plausible  to  peo- 
ple who  have  not  had  occasion  to  analyze  Webste- 
rian  arguments.  But  try  an  illustration.  The 
verb  prophesy  is  spelled  with  an  s,  and  the  noun 
prophecy  with  a  c,  by  Webster  and  by  all  lexicog 
raphers.  In  that  case,  the  accent  does  not  fall  on 
"  the  last  syllable,"  as  in  practice  and  practise  it 
does  not ;  and  "  persons  are  often  puzzled  to  recol- 
lect which  ought  to  have  the  c  and  which  the  s." 
Then,  why  did  not  "  Webster  establish  another  gen- 
uine reform,"  by  changing  prophesy,  the  verb,  to 
prophecy  ? 

Again :  Webster's  reasoning,  when  pushed  one 
step  further,  leads  to  the  edifying  discovery  that,  as 
accent  and  pronunciation  have  been  duly  consid- 
ered in  the  spelling  of  device  and  devise,  the  same 
rule  should  be  applied  to  the  nouns  excuse  and 
abuse.  Clearly,  they  should  be  spelled  excuce  and 
abuce. 

His  reason  for  changing  mould  and  moult  to 
mold  and  molt  is  simply  puerile  :  "  These  words  are 
written  without  the  u  in  analogy  with  the  words 
bold,  bolt,  colt,  gold,  etc.,  from  which  the  whas  been 
dropped."  Why  did  not  the  lexicographer  change 
court  to  cort,  "  in  analogy  with  port  and  fort,  from 
which  the  u  has  not  been  dropped  "  ?  Surely,  the 
latter  reason  is  as  good  as  the  former.  The  "  anal- 
ogy "  is  but  a  partial  escape  from  the  bolder  and 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  165 

certainly  "  original  "  rule  that  all  words  (without 
regard  to  derivation  or  established  use)  should  be 
spelled  precisely  as  they  are  pronounced. 

But  it  is  idle  to  waste  further  argument  on  a 
"  system  "  that  has  no  system ;  that  is  not  founded 
in  reason,  nor  conducted  with  reason. 

The  fact  remains,  that  all  Webster  really  accom- 
plished by  his  alchemy,  is  a  hopeless  confusion  in 
the  spelling  of  (derivatives  and  all)  perhaps  two 
hundred  words  in  a  dictionary  that  contains  nearly 
a  hundred  thousand  words.  Whereas,  before  Web- 
ster commenced  his  tinkering,  the  spelling  of  those 
two  hundred  words,  however  irregular  to  his  ap- 
prehension, was  more  uniform  than  probably  it 
ever  will  be  again.  He  has  proved  how  much 
easier  it  is  to  sow  tares  than  to  root  them  out. 

It  is  lamentable  that  he  should  have  done  a  mis- 
chief that  his  successors,  even  if  so  disposed,  have 
of  themselves  little  power  to  undo. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  fortunate  that  Web- 
ster's experiments  on  orthography,  although  to  a 
certain  extent  approved  by  people  of  a  certain 
class  ;  have  never  received  the  sanction  of  good 
writers  and  educated  men,  unless  in  exceptional 
instances.  And  after  the  concessions  made  in  the 
quarto  of  1866,  there  is  some  hope  that  the  further 
progress  of  the  plague  may  be  stayed,  as  to  all  men. 

There  might  be  something  invidious  in  the  ques- 
tion, who  does  in  fact  approve  of  Webster's  orthog- 
raphy ?  had  not  the  publishers  arrayed  a  list  of 
recommendations  in  the  quarto  of  1866,  which  one 


166  GOOD  ENGLISH. 

may  suppose  embodies  them  all.  The  list  is  divid- 
ed between  what  are  sent  by  letters  from  individ- 
uals, and  what  are  copied  from  newspapers. 

Of  individuals  there  are  just  thirty-three  whose 
names  are  given ;  the  majority  of  whom  speak  in 
favour  of  the  great  changes  that  have  been  made 
from  all  former  editions ;  and  four,  only,  of  whom 
refer  at  all  to  the  orthography  :  and  their  reference 
is  so  expressed  that  it  seems  quite  as  likely  to 
apply  to  the  alternative  spelling  (in  brackets)  as  to 
Webster's  spelling.  The  four  instances  are  men 
entirely  unknown  as  "  good  writers." 

Of  newspaper  recommendations  there  are  just 
thirty,  including  one  from  Constantinople.  The 
only  one  that  refers  to  orthography,  expresses  his 
views  in  these  words :  "  The  philosophical  analy- 
ses, the  systematic  arrangement  of  meanings,  the 
fulness  and  clearness  of  definitions,  the  orthoepy 
and  even  the  orthography,  with  many  another  ex- 
cellence, —  all  contribute  to  secure  pure,  unre- 
served praise  of  this  great  work." 

The  work  as  it  now  stands,  and  with  the  excep- 
tions hereinabove  designated,  is  worthy  of  the 
praise  bestowed  on  it ;  for  its  entire  reconstruction 
has  made  it  what  it  should  be,  —  always  excepting 
the  uneradicated  tares  of  Webster's  sowing.  If 
there  were  nothing  —  as  there  is  now  very  little  — 
of  Webster  left  in  it,  no  one  could  withhold  from  it 
the  very  highest  meed  of  praise. 

After  so  much  has  been  said  of  Webster's  Dic- 
tionary, it  would  be  both  invidious  and  unjust  not 
to  mention  Worcester's  Dictionary. 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  1(57 

That  great  and  admirable  work  is  entirely  free 
from  the  ridiculous  attempts  at  reform  in  orthog- 
raphy which  disfigure  and  debase  every  edition  of 
Webster  from  the  first  to  the  last,  —  always  except- 
ing Worcester's  omission  of  the  u  in  honour,  fa- 
vour, etc.  But  the  difference  between  Worcester 
and  Webster  in  that  regard  is,  that  Worcester  did 
not  attempt  to  legislate  on  the  subject ;  he  merely 
recorded  the  words  as  he  found  them  in  general 
American  usage,  when  he  commenced  his  labours : 
whereas  Webster  struck  out  the  letter  as  a  super- 
fluity, he  being  the  judge. 

Worcester's  etymologies  have  been  always  ap- 
proved ;  and  his  definitions  are  simple  and  perspic- 
uous in  a  degree  far  exceeding  any  precedent  dic- 
tionary of  the  English  language. 

Any  extended  notice  of  a  work  which  has  re- 
ceived universal  praise  would  be  supererogatory 
here,  even  if  such  notice  were  appropriate  to  the 
purposes  of  this  volume.  But  it  is  simple  justice 
to  say,  that  Worcester's  is  the  only  American  dic- 
tionary which  deserves  to  be  regarded  as  a  standard 
of  English  orthography. 


168  GOOD  ENGLISH. 


NOTE. 

THE  editor  of  The  Round  Table,  in  his  paper 
of  December  29th,  1866,  makes  the  following  an- 
nouncement :  — 

"  Considerations  of  convenience  and  expediency  have  led 
us  to  arrive  at  the  determination  to  eschew  hereafter  the 
Websterian  orthography  to  which  THE  ROUND  TABLE  has 
given  so  fair  and  protracted  a  trial.  We  do  this  not  without 
regret,  since  there  are  national  as  well  as  other  reasons  to  rec- 
ommend Dr.  Webster's  innovations.  It  is  possible  that,  should 
these  become  more  generally  adopted,  we  may  return  to  them 
at  a  future  day ;  but  for  the  present  we  conceive  that  our  in- 
terest and  the  wishes  of  the  majority  of  our  readers  will  be  best 
subserved  by  resuming  the  spelling  which  is  most  generally 
accepted.  The  change  has  not  been  hastily  made,  having 
been  for  some  time  in  contemplation,  and  it  has  been  thought 
that  the  beginning  of  the  NEW  VOLUME  would  afford  the 
most  favorable  opportunity  for  making  it." 

This  determination,  on  the  part  of  the  editor  of 
The  Round  Table,  is  interesting  to  all  those  who 
care  for  correct  orthography  ;  and  his  is  not  an 
isolated  case.  One  of  the  large  book-publishing 
firms  in  New  York,  and  one  of  the  leading  New 
York  daily  newspapers,  have,  severally,  taken  a 
similar  course ;  not,  indeed,  to  the  same  extent ; 
not  to  the  full  repudiation  of  "Webster's  heresies ; 
but,  to  a  partial  repudiation.  And,  as  their  course 
was  taken  without  an  announcement  either  of 
reasons  or  intention,  no  uninitiated  person  can  say 
just  when  the  thing  began,  nor  how  far  it  is,  or 


WEBSTER'S   ORTHOGRAPHY.  169 

is  to  be,  carried.  Judging  from  the  pages  of 
the  books  of  the  one  and  of  the  newspapers  of  the 
other,  a  looker-on  may  conjecture  that  the  repudi- 
ating of  Webster,  and  the  accrediting  of  Worces- 
ter, stand,  now,  about  in  the  proportion  of  six 
of  one  to  half  a  dozen  of  the  other,  —  a  condi- 
tion of  things  rather  perplexing  to  compositors  and 
proof-readers.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that,  in  due  time, 
the  publishers  and  the  editor  will  follow  the  exam- 
ple of  The  Round  Table  in  full. 


CLERICAL     ELOCUTION. 


A    LECTURE 

DELIVERED     BEFORE     THE     PROFESSORS     AND     STUDENTS 

OF    THE    DIVINITY    SCHOOL   OF   THE   PROTESTANT 

EPISCOPAL   CHURCH,   PHILADELPHIA. 


CLERICAL    ELOCUTION. 


IT  is  a  matter  of  common  observation,  that, 
while  accurate  elocution  is  of  the  highest  im- 
portance to  a  clergyman,  there  are,  nevertheless, 
very  few  good  readers  in  the  Church.  And,  al- 
though an  adequate  remedy  for  so  widely  spread  an 
evil  is  the  tiling  chiefly  to  be  sought,  a  brief  inquiry 
as  to  its  cause  may  be  not  inappropriate  at  the 
outset.  If  everybody  asks,  as  everybody  does  ask, 
why  is  it  that  clergymen  generally  are  such  poor 
readers?  anybody  may  attempt  a  reply;  and  a 
reply  must  be  the  result  of  investigation,  and  in- 
vestigation must  go  back  to  first  principles. 

The  first  lesson  of  a  child  in  reading  sentences 
aloud  in  school,  is  an  exercise  made  up  of  the  sim- 
ple utterance  of  printed  words,  with  little  or  no 
reference  to  their  meaning.  He  pronounces  me- 
chanically ;  the  easy  words  at  sight,  and  the  hard 
words  by  syllabic  spelling :  the  main  point  being, 
not  that  he  shall  read  with  propriety,  but  read  at 
all,  —  read  without  stopping.  And  if  it  happened 
to  be  in  the  power  of  teachers  to  put  a  scholar 
through  the  lessons  without  requiring  him  to  artic- 
ulate the  words ;  if  the  scholar  could  be  made  to 
read  to  himself,  —  that  is,  with  his  eyes  only,  —  and 


174  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

the  teacher  could  yet  know  that  the  boy  was  mas- 
tering his  task ;  there  might  be  a  reasonable  chance 
that  the  boy  would  avoid  the  contraction  of  a  habit 
of  formal,  monotonous,  prosy  utterance  which  is 
universally  prevalent  among  children  reading  at  a 
school,  and  which,  in  after  years,  is  found  to  be 
a  habit  almost  impossible  to  be  eradicated. 

This  first  lesson  in  oral  reading  is  not  intended 
as  an  elocutionary  exercise.  It  is  rather  an  exercise 
preliminary  to  the  study  of  other  lessons  that  are  to 
be  learned  and  repeated  ;  as  grammar,  geography, 
and  so  forth  ;  but,  in  the  mean  time,  the  habit  of  a 
vicious  elocution  has  been  contracted  ;  and  when, 
subsequently,  the  scholar  is  set  to  reading  for  elo- 
cutionary purposes,  the  same  formality,  monotony, 
and  prosiness  characterize  his  utterance. 

If  this  habit  were  now  his  sole  impediment  to 
reading  well,  his  own  increasing  intelligence,  and 
the  sense  of  the  language  he  reads  acting  on  that 
intelligence,  might  lead  him  to  break  away  from 
his  habit.  But,  in  the  first  place,  reading  aloud . 
before  a  class,  or  a  school,  is  certain  to  embar- 
rass the  boy ;  and,  for  the  time  being,  few  things 
prevent  the  action  of  one's  mind  more  effectually 
than  embarrassment.  And,  in  the  second  place, 
the  selections  that  fill  up  those  books  denominated 
"  Readers,"  portions  of  which  are  given  to  the 
scholars  for  practice,  are  the  finest,  the  most  elabo- 
rate, and  the  most  highly  wrought  passages  of 
our  language, — passages  which,  in  an  elocutionary 
sense,  are  as  near  the  impossible  as  anything  human 


CLERICAL   ELOCUTION.  175 

ingenuity  could  devise,  —  passages  which  no  one  hut 
a  thoroughly  accomplished  elocutionist  could  mas- 
ter :  and,  therefore,  passages  just  as  entirely  beyond 
the  capacity  of  school-boys  —  either  to  read  or  to 
comprehend  —  as  if  they  were  written  in  an  un- 
known tongue.  The  chance  of  a  boy's  improvement 
in  elocution,  by  practising  on  such  passages  as  those, 
would  be  extravagantly  estimated  at  one  in  a  mil- 
lion. 

Now,  combine  the  bad  habit  with  the  embarrass- 
ment and  the  impossible  passages,  and  we  can 
easily  see,  that  while,  in  regard  to  accurate  elocu- 
tion, boys  at  school  learn  absolutely  nothing,  they 
acquire  absolutely  something  ;  and  that  something 
is  error,  and  only  error  continually. 

When  young  men,  under  such  a  system  of  tui- 
tion, are  graduated  from  the  various  seminaries  of 
learning,  they  are  certain  to  take  with  them  quite 
enough  of  false  notions  on  the  subject  of  elocution. 
But  when  one  of  them  enters  upon  the  duties  and 
services  of  the  Church,  ho  is  careful  to  add  to  his 
elocutionary  defects  a  preconceived  fancy  that  his 
own  voice,  in  its  natural  development,  is  not  suited 
to  religious  rites  and  ceremonies ;  and,  influenced 
by  that  erroneous  conceit,  he  assumes  a  tone  and 
manner  that  effectually  extinguish  any  germs  of 
correct  elocution  which  were  born  with  him,  and 
which  may  have  survived  his  educational  disci- 
pline. His  purpose  in  assuming  this  artificial 
style  is  honest  and  commendable.  He  intends 
to  be  solemn  and  impressive ;  but  he  so  far  over- 


176  CLERICAL   ELOCUTION. 

does  the  matter,  that,  if  his  performance  were 
judged  by  critical  rules,  it  would  be  pronounced 
ludicrous.  In  many  instances  of  both  young  and 
old  clergymen,  this  elaborated  effort  at  solemnity  is 
carried  to  such  an  extent,  that  nothing  but  the  sur- 
roundings of  the  scene  and  the  well-understood 
intentions  of  the  reader,  prevent  the  general  effect 
from  being  literally  and  irresistibly  comic.  What 
many  clergymen  persuade  themselves  is  a  solemn 
tone  —  or  a  "  holy  tone"  —  is,  in  fact,  a  broad 
burlesque  of  anything  and  everything  serious. 

In  addition  to  this  mistaken  effort  at  impressive- 
ness,  which  vitiates  one's  entire  delivery,  occasional 
phrases  are  rendered  in  a  way  that  puts  all 
thought  of  solemnity  at  defiance.  For  example, 
the  words  "  0  Lord."  Those  two  vowels  —  the 
long  and  short  o  —  are  prolonged  to  the  extent  of 
a  musical  semibreve :  a  thing  impossible  to  a  man 
who  feels  that  he  is  really  addressing  his  Maker ; 
yet,  it  seems,  a  thing  "  very  easily  possible  "  to  pro- 
fessional men,  who,  under  the  pressure  of  routine, 
mannerism,  and  formality,  substitute  sound  for 
feeling,  and  think  that  they  give  intensity  to  the 
imitated  feeling  by  exaggerating  the  sound:  that 
is,  the  more  noise  they  make,  the  more  feeling  they 
exhibit.  The  line,  "  Holy,  holy,  holy  Lord  God  of 
Sabaoth,"  is  often  delivered  with  this  protracted 
and  inflated  utterance.  The  first  "  holy  "  is  made 
too  long  and  too  loud  ;  and  the  reader  seems  to 
think  it  necessary  to  double  those  faults  on  the 
first,  and  quadruple  them  on  the  second  repetition. 


CLERICAL   ELOCUTION.  177 

The  habit  of  prolonging  a  word  with  a  view  of  in- 
creasing its  impressiveness,  or  in  any  way  attempt- 
ing to  evoke  solemnity  out  of  sonorousness,  is  a 
blunder  in  all  its  details.  It  is  popularly  termed 
"  mouthing,"  and  it  is  separated  from  true  elocu- 
tion by  a  distance  equal  to  the  entire  diameter  of 
the  system.  It  is  the  antipodes  of  good  reading. 
If,  by  virtue  of  any  modern  invention,  a  clergyman 
of  this  stamp  —  and  their  "name  is  legion"  — 
could  get  his  elocution  photographed  for  the  eye 
and  ear,  and  would  examine  privately  the  mixture 
of  strange  sounds  that  he  has  perpetrated  publicly, 
he  would  see  for  himself — what  cannot  be  ade- 
quately described. 

The  assumption  that  something  out  of  one's  natu- 
ral tone  and  manner  is  indispensable  to  a  proper 
rendering  of  the  Church  Service  is  almost  uni- 
versal ;  yet  different  individuals  hit  upon  different 
methods  of  carrying  the  assumption  into  practice. 
Some  men  adopt  the  various  intonations  of  whi- 
ning ;  others  essay  the  equally  various  notes  of 
drawling ;  and  others,  again,  introduce  tones  for 
which  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  descriptive 
epithet.  And  all  this  strange  and  unnatural  ma- 
chinery is  set  in  motion  for  the  purpose  of  harmo- 
nizing with,  and  adding  impressiveness  to,  what  is 
serious  and  solemn  ;  and  what,  therefore,  requires 
to  be  treated  with  simplicity.  On  any  principle  of 
reason,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  majority  of 
an  entire  class  of  educated  men  should  voluntarily 
adopt,  and  resolutely  persist  in  maintaining,  what 


178  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

is  so  totally  at  variance  with  well  established  con- 
clusions. 

I  have  now,  at  what  I  suppose  to  be  sufficient 
length,  considered  the  causes,  and  some  of  the 
effects,  of  the  present  condition  of  elocution  in 
the  Church.  A  matter  of  much  more  importance 
to  those  who  are  in  the  service  of  the  Church,  as 
well  as  to  those  who  propose  to  enter  it,  remains  to 
be  discussed :  namely,  a  remedy  for  this  wide-spread 
evil.  I  approach  this  part  of  the  subject  with  diffi- 
dence ;  because,  although  I  may  think  that,  to  some 
extent,  I  understand  it,  I  am  not  at  all  certain 
of  being  able  to  convey  my  impressions  to  others. 
The  case  may  be  briefly  stated  in  two  proposi- 
tions :  — 

First,  every  man  has  naturally,  within  himself, 
the  power  of  attaining  perfection  in  the  art  of 
elocution. 

Secondly,  he  must  be,  to  a  very  great  extent,  his 
own  teacher. 

That  every  man  has  the  power  of  attaining  ft 
perfect  elocution,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he 
practises  perfect  elocution  every  day  of  his  life  ; 
and,  moreover,  he  does  this  not  as  the  result  of 
study  or  education  ;  but  involuntarily,  instinctively, 
and  as  a  matter  of  literal  necessity.  Indeed,  every 
child  who  is  old  enough  to  have  learned  to  talk, 
does  the  same  thing ;  and  he  does  this,  as  every 
older  person  does  it,  in  his  ordinary  familiar  con- 
versation. Listen  to  an  uneducated  boy  five  years 
old,  speaking  his  own  thoughts,  in  his  own  Ian- 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  179 

guage,  to  and  with  his  own  companions.  You  will 
find  that  he  uses  proper  emphasis  and  inflection ; 
that  he  pauses  in  the  right  place,  without  pausing 
too  long ;  that  his  intonations  will  conform  to  the 
most  rigid  elocutionary  rules ;  and,  in  short,  that  he 
will  so  entirely  fulfil  all  the  requisites  of  elocution, 
that  no  severity  of  criticism  can  convict  him  of  a 
fault.  And  the  same  remarks  apply  with  equal 
truth  to  any  person  further  advanced  in  life.  Any 
man,  speaking  his  own  thoughts  familiarly  and  un- 
reservedly, without  consciousness  of  an  audience, 
and  without  considering  how  his  words  will  sound, 
cannot  err  in  his  elocution.  Accuracy  of  delivery, 
in  such  circumstances,  is  instinctive  and  inevitable. 

If  these  allegations  are  true,  —  and  a  very  little 
intelligent  observation  and  reflection  will  prove 
them  to  be  so,  —  it  follows  that  every  person  has 
within  himself  the  power  of  perfect  elocution  ;  and 
that,  if  he  chooses  to  set  himself  about  it,  he  can 
be  his  own  teacher.  -  For  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  ap- 
ply to  the  words  of  OTHERS  the  same  practical  rules 
by  which  he  regulates  the  utterance  of  his  OWN  words. 
Therein  —  in  that  brief  sentence,  and  so  far  as  the 
public  reading  of  the  Church  Service  is  concerned 
—  lies  the  whole  art  of  elocution.  Deliver  the 
words  of  others  as  you  deliver  your  own,  is  the  pre- 
cept ;  and  our  matter  in  hand  is,  how  to  put  it  in 
practice. 

The  first  step  in  that  undertaking  is,  to  ascertain 
how  we  speak  our  own  words  ?  Well;  in  the  con- 
ditions designated,  — that  is,  when  we  speak  famil- 


180  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

iarly,  unreservedly,  without  embarrassment,  with- 
out consciousness  of  an  audience,  and  without 
considering  how  the  words  will  sound,  —  we  speak 
simply,  naturally,  unaffectedly :  we  use  no  manner- 
ism ;  we  do  not  drawl,  nor  whine,  nor  mouth  our 
words ;  we  speak  them,  as  Hamlet  says,  "  trippingly 
on  the  tongue  "  ;  and,  acting  in  conformity  to  our 
inward  and  untrammelled  impulses,  we  give  to  each 
word  its  intrinsic  or  relative  importance.  We,  in 
short,  show  that  we  understand  the  meaning  of 
what  we  say,  and  we  unfailingly  make  every  audi- 
tor understand  it ;  and,  by  the  same  token,  we  con- 
vey to  him  the  full  force  and  effect  of  our  language. 
To  be  sure,  our  language  may  not  be  very  forcible 
or  effective ;  but  whatever  of  force  or  effect  is  in  it, 
this  manner  of  speaking  must  bring  out ;  and  that 
is  the  purpose  and  prerogative  of  elocution.  That, 
also,  is  the  duty  of  a  clergyman  in  reading  the 
Church  Service.  He  must  make  the  most  of,  he 
must  develop  all  there  is  in,  the  language  that  he 
utters.  And  he  will  certainly  do  that  whenever, 
by  study  and  practice,  he  shall  have  brought  him- 
self to  deliver  that  language  as  if  it  were  literally 
his  own. 

To  prevent  misapprehension,  let  me  remark  here, 
parenthetically,  that  I  am  at  present  treating  of  the 
reading  of  the  Bible  and  Prayer  Book,  and  not  of 
the  reading  of  one's  own  sermons  ;  and  that  when 
I.  speak  of  one's  "  own  language,"  I  do  not  mean 
one's  written  language.  The  manner  in  which  a 
clergyman  should  deliver  his  sermon  is  a  matter 
for  subsequent  and  separate  consideration. 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  181 

Our  Liturgy  is  composed  of  miscellaneous  pas- 
of  Scripture,  religious  precepts  and  sugges- 
tions, general  petitions  and  special  prayers.  The 
officiating  clergyman  speaks  or  reads  these  by 
authority  ;  partly  addressing  the  congregation  and 
partly  directing  his  words  to  the  Throne  of  Grace 
for  the  congregation,  —  himself  included.  In  these 
several  conditions  he  may  he  supposed,  in  spirit,  to 
speak  as  from  and  of  his  private  impulses ;  for,  al- 
though the  sentences  are  known  to  be  printed,  and 
not  to  be  his,  he,  for  the  time  being,  represents  the 
original  writers.  Conventionally,  he  addresses  the 
Deity  and  the  people  in  his  own  person,  and  it  is 
therefore  proper  for  him  to  use  the  printed  lan- 
guage as  if  it  were  spontaneously  emanating  from 
himself.  Indeed,  his  assuming  that  exact  relation 
to  his  audience  is  one  of  the  first  requisites  of  ac- 
curate elocution.  He  must  virtually  make  the 
language  his  own,  in  order  to  deliver  it  with  pro- 
priety, and  ho  will  never  deliver  it  appropriately 
until  he  so  appropriates  it. 

Placing  himself,  then,  in  the  position  of  an 
authorized  teacher  and  theoretically  speaking  his 
own  words,  ho  must  adopt  a  tone  and  manner  cor- 
responding to  his  position.  His  tone  must  be  his 
conversational  tone,  and  his  manner,  (reverential  as 
to  the  Deity,  colloquial  as  to  the  congregation,)  his 
natural  manner,  varied,  indeed,  according  to  the 
subject,  but  still  so  really  his  own  that  any  listen- 
ing friend  would  recognize  him  to  be  the  speaker 
by  his  tone  and  manner  alone. 


182  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

It  is  obvious  that,  in  mastering  this  part  of  his 
elocutionary  task,  a  clergyman  must  be  substan- 
tially his  own  teacher.  He  best  knows,  or  should 
know,  what  are  his  natural  tone  and  manner  in 
private  colloquial  intercourse,  and  he  can  best  train 
himself  to  pronounce  the  printed  words  of  others 
in  conformity  thereto. 

To  do  this,  he  should  begin  by  putting  all  thought 
of  a  congregation  out  of  his  mind.  He  should,  in 
imagination,  reduce  his  audience  to  "  two  or  three," 
and  compel  himself  to  speak  to  the  many  as  he 
would  to  the  few ;  and  he  should  prepare  for  such 
public  exercise  by  privately  studying  and  practising 
the  language  before  him,  sentence  by  sentence, 
until  he  brings  its  utterance  into  exact  harmony 
with  his  own  natural  style.  This  may  seem  to  be 
a  tedious  process ;  it  may  even  seem  to  be  an  un- 
necessary toil ;  but  very  few  men  who  neglect  it 
will  make  much  progress  in  elocution.  Besides, 
the  task  will  not  be  found  so  formidable  in  practice 
as  it  may  appear  in  contemplation. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  I  must  not  so  far 
understate  the  difficulties  of  self-teaching,  as  to 
lead  you  to  underrate  them.  And,  in  that  regard, 
let  me  call  your  attention  to  one  point  that  may 
easily  be  overlooked ;  namely,  that-  inasmuch  as  the 
manner  of  a  speaker,  or  reader,  is  the  most  nearly 
natural,  and  therefore  the  most  nearly  perfect, 
when  he  is  unconscious  of  his  manner  ;  he  may, 
and  will,  be  somewhat  impeded  in  ascertaining 
exactly  what  his  natural  manner  is.  The  very  act 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  183 

ot  his  observing,  or  looking  after,  his  own  manner, 
takes  away  his  unconsciousness.  A  man  must 
therefore,  to  some  extent,  separate  himself  from 
himself,  in  order  to  find  himself  out:  a  process 
that,  indeed,  would  not  be  amiss  in  other  matters, 
as  well  as  in  the  study  of  elocution. 

Again,  strictly  speaking,  there  can  be  no  excep- 
tion to  the  rule  that  one's  natural  manner  of  speak- 
ing one's  own  words  is  necessarily  the  perfection 
of  elocution.  Yet,  there  are  two  exceptions  to  that 
natural  manner  itself,  which,  practically,  become 
exceptions  to  the  rule. 

One  of  these  is  a  habit  which  many  people  ac- 
quire, of  rapid  and  indistinct  utterance  in  their 
ordinary  conversation.  To  them  this  habit  be- 
comes a  sort  of  "  second  nature  "  ;  but  that  is  not 
the  sort  of  nature  to  which  I  refer.  It  is  illegiti- 
mate, and  it  must  be  repudiated. 

The  other  exception  is  also  an  illegitimate  off- 
shoot from  nature  ;  namely,  affectation.  Whether 
that  contemptible  quality  is  born  with  its  victims, 
or  is  acquired  through  injurious  training,  it  comes 
to  the  same  deplorable  result:  not  one  of  them 
seems  to  be  capable  of  a  natural  tone  or  of  a  grace- 
ful action.  Everything  they  do  is  stiff,  clumsy,  and 
artificial.  And  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that 
whoever  has  acquired  the  habit  of  affectation,  or 
of  rapid  utterance,  will  make  no  progress  in  elo- 
cution by  speaking  the  words  of  others  as  he  speaks 
his  own  words.  Such  a  man  has  as  much  to  un- 
learn as  to  learn  ;  and  the  former  process  is  the 
more  difficult  of  the  two. 


184  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

Colton  thus  felicitously  describes  the  difference 
between  ignorance  and  error :  Ignorance  is  a  blank 
sheet,  on  which  the  learner  can  transcribe  what  he 
acquires ;  but  error  is  a  scribbled  sheet,  the  dis- 
figuration of  which  must  be  erased  before  the 
learner  can  commence  his  record. 

In  the  same  way,  affectation,  and  rapidity  of 
utterance,  must  be  thoroughly  erased  before  any 
real  progress  in  elocution  can  be  made. 

Let  me  now  interrupt  this  series  of  precepts  by 
introducing  a  practical  example.  Take  the  first 
sentence  in  the  Prayer  Book  ;  and,  as  a  universally 
indispensable  preliminary,  analyze  it,  in  order  to 
ascertain  its  precise  meaning ;  because  the  mean- 
ing of  a  passage  controls  its  emphasis,  as,  recipro 
cally,  the  emphasis  develops  its  •  meaning.  The 
Prophet  Habakkuk,  in  the  original  passage,  an- 
nounces that  the  Lord  is  present,  and  that  there- 
fore all  the  earth  must  keep  silence.  The  clergy- 
man, in  the  same  passage  when  appropriated  to  the 
Service  of  the  Church,  reminds  the  congregation 
that  the  Lord  is  present  and  that  they  must  keep 
silence ;  not  literal  silence,  however,  but  rather 
reverence  and  attention,  for  the  people  are  to  join 
the  clergyman  in  portions  of  the  Service.  If  this 
verse  were  written,  "  The  Lord  is  here :  keep 
silence,"  —  which  is  substantially  its  meaning,  — 
no  one  could  mistake  the  proper  emphasis  in  read- 
ing it ;  but  it  is  often  improperly  read ;  as,  for  in- 
stance, by  the  emphasizing  of  lemple,  before,  etc. 
Lord  and  silence  are  the  only  words  essentially 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  185 

emphatic ;  but  as  the  sentence,  like  so  many  pas- 
sages  of  Scripture,  is  constructed  antithetically,  — 
"Lord"  and  "earth"  being  contrasted,— the  prop- 
erly emphatic  words  are  "Lord,"  "earth,"  and 
"  silence."  Some  persons  contend  that  "  temple" 
is  also  emphatic  ;  but  as  the  words  are  pronounced 
"  in  the  temple,"  as  all  who  hear  them  are  in  the 
temple,  and  as  tliey  knoiv  that  the  Lord  is  always 
in  his  holy  temple  when  "  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together"  there;  such  an  emphasis  would  contra- 
dict the  spirit  of  the  passage.  It  could  be  justified 
only  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  phrase  "  holy  tem- 
ple "  indicates  some  place  other  than  where  the 
people  arc  assembled.  A  familiar  illustration  will 
make  this  plain,  if,  indeed,  it  is  not  so  already. 
If  Mr.  Lincoln  were  in  this  city,  you  would  say, 
"  The  President  is  in  Philadelphia  " ;  but  if  he 
were  in  a  neighbouring  city,  you  would  say,  "  The 
President  is  in  New  York." 

You  may  think  that  I  have  enlarged  unneces- 
sarily on  this  simple  passage.  But  you  may  be 
assured  that  it  is  not  easy  to  over-study  the  lan- 
guage which  is  to  be  publicly  read  or  repeated. 
The  great  actors  Kean  and  Macready  are  reported 
—  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  report  is  true  —  to 
have  appropriated  no  less  than  three  years  of  study 
to  such  characters  as  Lear,  Hamlet,  Othello,  before 
they  would  venture  to  produce  them  on  the  stage ; 
although,  at  the  commencement  of  such  study,  they 
must  already  have  been  very  familiar  with  those 
plays.  The  acquisition  of  the  mere  words  of  the 


186  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

three  characters  would  occupy  but  a  short  time, 
for  the  individual  parts  sustained  by  the  actor  do 
not  contain  more  than  some  six  hundred  lines  each, 
in  the  stage  version  of  the  plays.  So  that  those 
distinguished  masters  of  elocution,  after  making 
sure  of  the  language  of  the  poet,  studied  its  delivery 
at  an  average  rate  of  less  than  a  line  a  day.  And 
the  result  was,  that  they  gained  the  prize  for  which 
they  contended  ;  namely,  enduring  fame. 

That,  by  way  of  illustration.  The  prize  for  which 
you  are  to  contend  is  not  fame,  but  usefulness ;  and 
your  text-book  is  not  Shakespeare,  but  the  Bible. 
The  language  of  the  Bible,  however,  requires  quite 
as  careful,  and  sometimes  quite  as  profound,  study 
as  the  language  of  Shakespeare.  Every  verse  of 
Scripture,  and  every  sentence  of  the  Liturgy,  needs 
to  be  deliberately  considered  and  analyzed;  first, 
as  to  the  exact  meaning,  and  then,  as  to  the-  best 
method  of  expressing  that  meaning.  And  my  ob- 
ject in  minutely  analyzing  the  first  sentence  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  as  well  as  in  citing  the  practice  of  the 
actors,  is  to  impress  on  your  minds,  by  virtue  of  a 
single  example,  the  nature  of  the  process  which  it 
is  necessary  for  you  to  apply  to  every  line  that  you 
deliver  to  a  congregation.  There  is  no  royal  road 
to  elocution  ;  and  a  clergyman  can  commit  no 
greater  error  in  regard  to  elocution,  than  to  assume 
that  a  proper  rendering  of  the  Bible  and  Prayer 
Book  is  to  be  attained  by  "  running  his  eye  "  —  as 
the  phrase  is  —  over  the  services  of  the  day  on  the 
morning  of  the  day.  On  the  contrary,  everything 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  187 

must  be  patiently  and  faithfully  studied.  And  that 
is  as  true  for  the  proficient,  as  for  the  tyro,  in  elo- 
cution. For  elocution  is  but  an  instrument,  and 
language  is  its  written  music ;  and  after  one  has 
mastered  the  difficulties  of  the  instrument  itself, 
he  must  master,  severally  and  independently,  the 
pieces  to  be  performed;  and  in  both  cases,  the 
quality  of  the  performance  will  depend  very  much 
on  the  quantity  of  midnight  oil  that  he  expends. 

To  treat  this  point  more  in  detail,  the  student 
should  practise,  line  by  line,  on  every  part  of  the 
Prayer  Book  and  the  Lessons,  in  the  same  manner 
as  a  singer  practises  on  every  line  and  word  of  a 
song.  He  should  make  sure  of  the  precise  mean- 
ing of  everything  he  is  to  read ;  of  the  emphasis, 
pause,  and  inflection  that  will  certainly  convey  that 
meaning  to  his  auditors  ;  and  of  the  tone  and 
style  that  entirely  accord  with  his  colloquial  utter- 
ances, apart  from  an  audience.  According  to  the 
subject,  he  may  read  somewhat  more  slowly  than 
the  rate  of  his  ordinary  conversation  ;  but  no  other 
change  should  be  made.  And  it  is  to  be  observed 
that,  in  elocution,  each  man  has,  and  must  use,  his 
own  style  and  tone.  Music  is  more  arbitrary,  and 
therefore  less  natural.  The  score  of  music  is  ab- 
solute ;  and  whoever  sings  the  tune  must  follow  the 
score ;  so  that  a  hundred  people  may  sing  together, 
and  sing  accurately,  and  sing  alike.  But  a  hun- 
dred men  never  talk  alike  ;  and  if  they  read  or 
speak  naturally,  they  will  not  read  or  speak  alike. 
Thus,  every  man  who  would  excel  in  elocution  ia 


188  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

really  forced  to  use  his  own  style  ;  for,  if  he  at- 
tempts to  imitate  the  style  of  another,  however 
good  that  style  may  be  in  the  original,  he  will  cer- 
tainly "  come  to  grief."  Imitation  is  never  natu- 
ral. It  is  always  exaggeration,  and  it  usually  ends 
in  caricature.  Besides,  what  is  strictly  natural  in 
one  man  is  not  necessarily  so  in  another.  Men 
differ  as  widely  in  their  manner  of  expressing  the 
same  sentiment  or  emotion,  as  they  differ  in  features 
or  in  handwriting ;  and  yet,  in  each  of  the  three 
instances,  individuality  is  perfectly  maintained. 
Let  the  manner  of  expressing  an  emotion  differ  in 
separate  individuals  as  it  may,  the  emotion  itself  is 
still  just  as  easily  recognized,  in  each  several  in- 
stance, as  a  man's  face  or  his  signature. 

Take  an  illustration,  which  is  extreme  in  the 
sense  that  anger  has  no  place  in  a  church :  some 
men  are  boisterous  when  they  are  intensely  angry ; 
and  others,  in  the  same  condition,  will  speak  al- 
most in  a  whisper ;  and  the  latter  development  is, 
to  a  spectator,  much  the  more  startling  of  the  two. 
But  no  spectator  would  fail  to  see  that  each  exhi- 
bition was  genuine  passion,  naturally  expressed. 
And  were  the  two  men  to  change  their  parts,  and 
each  attempt  to  exhibit  anger  after  the  manner, 
and  in  the  style,  of  the  other ;  each  would  totally 
fail  to  impress  the  spectator  with  anything  but  con- 
tempt for  the  performer's  power  of  imitation, — 
or,  what  comes  to  the  same  thing,  the  performer's 
power  of  representing  true  passion.  In  short,  each 
would  then  do  just  what  any  man,  or  any  clergy- 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION  189 

man,  does  when  he  seeks  to  express  an  emotion,  or 
a  passion,  by  any  agency  other  than  his  own  facul- 
ties, naturally  exercised. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  taken  into  account  that  peo- 
ple when  under  the  excitement  of  passion  are  not 
usually  conscious  of  its  external  display ;  they  do 
not  necessarily  know  how  it  appears ;  but  the  ap- 
pearance, so  to  speak,  takes  care  of  itself,  and 
never  misrepresents  itself.  And,  therefore,  when  a 
man  wishes  to  exhibit  an  emotion  contained  in  the 
language  of  another,  his  proper  study,  in  the  first 
instance,  is,  not  the  external  display,  but  the  inter- 
nal sentiment.  He  must  not  work  up  an  expres- 
sion for  his  voice,  or  his  face  ;  but  must  bring  his 
heart  and  mind  into  sympathy  and  unison  with  his 
author ;  leaving  his  face  and  voice,  for  the  time  be- 
ing, to  their  own  natural  action.  The  voice  must 
afterward  be  trained  into  harmony  with  the  read- 
er's own  proper  utterance,  and  in  that  exercise  his 
ear  becomes  his  tutor.  This  variety  of  form,  in 
which  the  same  emotion  expresses  itself  in  differ- 
ent persons,  is  a  remarkable  physiological  fact; 
and  it  seems  to  indicate,  even  with  the  force  of  a 
natural  law,  that  every  man  shall  be,  to  a  great  ex- 
tent, his  own  teacher  in  elocution,  —  as  in  any- 
thing where  peculiarity  is  the  rule,  and  uniformity 
the  exception. 

I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  this  self-teaching  is 
easy,  especially  at  the  outset.  If  it  were  easy,  and 
if  men  found  it  so,  and  if  men  by  practice  would 
prove  it  so ;  elocution  would  not  be  so  rarely  ac- 


190  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

quired,  and  these  remarks  on  it  would  be  uncalled 
for.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  though  the  task  is 
not  easy,  it  is  also  not  impossible.  Its  difficulties, 
formidable  as  they  may  seem  when  contemplated 
in  the  aggregate,  soon  disappear  when  grappled  in 
detail. 

And,  by  way  of  detail,  we  will  now  briefly  recur 
to  the  first  sentence  of  the  Prayer  Book,  —  a  sen- 
tence as  simple  in  its  construction,  and  as  readily 
adapted  to  a  practical  test,  as  any  that  could  be 
selected.  We  have  already  seen  its  meaning  and 
its  appropriate  emphasis.  Its  proper  delivery  re- 
mains to  be  considered  ;  and  that  point  resolves  it- 
self into  the  inquiry,  —  how  would  you  pronounce 
the  words  if  you  were  not  a  clergyman,  were  not 
officiating  in  a  church,  but  were  one  of  "  two  or 
three  "  met  together  in  a  sanctuary,  and  wished  to 
remind  your  companions  of  the  familiar  fact  of  the 
Lord's  presence  ?  For  you  must  observe  that  the 
number  of  a  clergyman's  auditors  by  no  means 
changes  his  relations  to  the  individuals  who  com- 
pose that  number.  He  is  still  one  man,  whether 
he  addresses  two  men,  or  two  thousand  men  ;  and 
each  of  the  two,  or  the  two  thousand,  is  an  individ- 
ual, individually  addressed,  just  as  literally  as  if 
such  individual  were  the  sole  auditor.  And  any 
style  of  address  —  the  words  being  the  same  — 
that  to  the  one  would  be  improper  or  extravagant, 
must  be  equally  so  to  the  many.  Now,  in  precisely 
the  circumstances  above  indicated,  how  would  you 
remind  your  two  companions  of  the  familiar  fact 


CLERICAL   ELOCUTION.  191 

of  the  Lord's  presence  ?  You  of  course  would  not 
utter  the  words  pompously,  or  sonorously,  or  in 
any  way  out  of  your  ordinary  colloquial  tone.  On 
the  contrary,  you  would  speak  them  quietly,  sim- 
ply, naturally,  and  loud  enough  to  be  heard  by  those 
whom  you  addressed.  And  it  is  needless  for  me  to 
add,  that  your  doing  so  would  cost  you  no  effort. 
You  would  merely  have  done  what  you  do  every 
day,  without  a  thought  as  to  hoiv  you  do  it.  Now, 
would  it  be  a  great  undertaking  to  practise  on 
those  words,  privately,  till  you  can  repeat  them  in 
precisely  the  same  manner,  first,  to  an  imaginary 
audience  of  "  two  or  three,"  and  afterward  to  a 
similar  audience  of  a  thousand  ?  Yet,  when  you 
have  literally  and  faithfully  done  just  that,  so  far  as 
that  sentence  is  concerned,  you  will  virtually  have 
acquired  the  art  of  elocution  ;  and  you  will,  there- 
after, find  much  less  difficulty  in  applying  elocu- 
tionary rules  and  principles  to  any  other  passages  in 
the  Church  Service.  You  will  have  mastered  the 
instrument,  and  you  will  thereafter  have  to  study 
only  the  music. 

Observe,  however,  that  the  music  so  to  be 
studied,  —  that  is,  the  passages  to  be  first  analyzed, 
and  then  adapted  to  a  natural  delivery,  are  neither 
few  nor  small.  The  Psalter,  Lessons,  Epistle,  and 
Gospel  make  together  an  average  aggregate  of  per- 
haps three  hundred  lines  for  every  Sunday  morn- 
ing and  evening  throughout  the  year,  each  of 
which  is  a  separate  study.  And  to  those  add  tho 
other  services  of  the  Prayer  Book,  which  are  the 


192  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

same  for  every  Sunday,  and  which  do  not  require  a 
separate  weekly  study.  But  they  require  a  sepa- 
rate weekly  care  ;  for  their  constant  repetition  will 
otherwise  lead  the  reader  into  a  mechanical,  undis- 
criminating  style,  which,  perhaps,  is  the  worst  of 
all  styles ;  because  it  indicates  that  the  clergyman 
takes  no  personal  interest  in  his  precepts  and  peti- 
tions. If  you  direct  your  attention  to  the  subject, 
you  will  observe  that  almost  every  clergyman  reads 
that  part  of  the  service  worse  than  any  other. 
Just  a§  a  man  will  write  his  own  name  more  illegi- 
bly —  and  therefore  worse  —  than  he  writes  any- 
thing else.  He  writes  it  so  often,  that  he  gives 
little  or  no  heed  to  his  manner  of  writing  it.  I 
have  known  instances  of  clergymen  who  had  de- 
voted much  time  and  attention  to  the  study  of  elo- 
cution, and  who,  in  other  respects,  were  very  good 
readers  ;  who,  nevertheless,  uniformly  failed  in 
their  rendering  of  those  parts  of  the  service  which 
are  read  every  Sunday.  And  it  is  to  such  cases 
particularly,  though  not  exclusively,  that  the  cele- 
brated and  oft-quoted  remark  of  Garrick  applies. 
A  clergyman  inquired  of  the  actor'  why  the  elocu- 
tion of  the  stage  was  so  much  more  impressive 
than  the  elocution  of  the  Church?  Garrick  re- 
plied, that,  whereas  the  actor  spoke  his  fiction  as  if 
it  were  truth,  the  clergyman  delivered  his  truth  as 
if  it  were  fiction.  The  grievousness  of  this  com- 
mon fault  cannot  easily  be  overstated ;  for,  of  all 
things  to  be  strenuously  guarded  against  and 
avoided  in  the  performance  of  the  Church  Service, 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  193 

whatever  partakes  of  carelessness  or  irreverence  is 
the  most  prominent.*  Yet  those  are  precisely  the 
qualities  suggested,  if  not  developed,  by  that  me- 
chanical style  which  results  from  a  frequent  repeti- 
tion of  the  same  language. 

The  mechanical  style  is,  as  a  moment's  reflec- 
tion will  show  that  it  necessarily  would  be,  much 
more  common  with  clergymen  "  of  a  certain  age," 
than  with  younger  members  of  the  profession  ; 
because  it  is  a  style  that  grows  on  all  men  who  do 
not  resolutely  resist  it. 

Many  of  the  older  clergymen  have  travelled  in 
Europe,  and  have  listened  with  impatience  and 
contempt  to  the  dull,  lifeless,  monotonous  style  in 
which  the  guides,  or  showmen,  of  the  public 
buildings  in  European  capitals  describe  their  ob- 
jects of  curiosity.  Did  those  clergymen  ever  hap- 
pen to  consider  that  their  audiences  may  listen  with 
the  same  impatience  and  contempt  to  their  dull, 
lifeless,  monotonous  style  of  reading  the  Church 
Service  ? 

The  style,  in  either  case,  is  just  one  remove  from 
the  articulation  of  an  automaton,  —  supposing  an 
automaton  could  be  made  to  speak.  The  only  real 
difference  between  the  two  cases  is,  that  the  guides 
don't,  and  the  clergymen  should,  "  know  better." 

*  Garrick  once  said  to  a  clergyman,  "  What  books  were  those  that 
you  used  this  morning  in  reading  the  service?  "  "Books  ?  "  re- 
ioined  the  clergyman ;  "  why,  the  Bible  and  Prayer  Book."  "  Ah," 
said  Garrick;  "  I  observed  that  you  handled  them  as  if  they  were 
ft  leger  and  day-book." 

Q  * 


194  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

I  am  here  reminded  of  a  remark  made  by  Mac- 
ready,  the  tragedian,  when  speaking  of  the  con- 
stant repetition  of  his  great  Shakespearian  charac- 
ters. He  said,  that,  so  far  from  finding  the  reiter- 
ation of  the  several  parts  tedious,  he  always  found 
in  each  of  them  some  new  point  of  interest  that 
had  escaped  his  previous  study  ;  and  that,  as  to 
his  acting,  he  never  commenced  one  of  those  famil- 
iar characters  without  resolving  to  play  it,  on  that 
occasion,  better  than  he  ever  played  it  before. 
That  remark  —  which  Macready  made  to  me  per- 
sonally —  is  well  worthy  of  your  attention.  It  is 
very  suggestive  ;  and  it  covers  much  ground  which 
you  are  interested  in  cultivating. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  intimating,  in 
a  recent  paragraph,  that  all  parts  of  the  Bible,  or 
Prayer  Book,  are  as  easily  mastered  as  the  simple 
quotation  from  Habakkuk.  The  Bible  compre- 
hends almost  every  form  and  style  of  language, — 
mandate,  precept,  invocation,  narrative,  descrip- 
tion, monologue,  dialogue,  and  so  on.  And  the 
manner  of  reading  them  must  necessarily  be  varied 
according  to  their  several  characteristics.  But.  in- 
asmuch as  there  is  no  form  of  language  in  the 
Bible  or  Prayer  Book  which  does  not,  at  some 
time,  come  within  every  man's  colloquial  experi- 
ences, no  man  can  really  find  himself  in  want  of 
an  adequate  model  with  which  to  compare,  and  by 
which  to  regulate,  his  public  reading  of  the  Church 
Service.  Therefore,  whether  the  passages  to  be 
read  are  simple  or  complex,  quiet  or  impassioned, 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  195 

they  are  all  within  the  grasp  of  a  careful,  pains- 
taking student.  He  can,  if  he  will,  bring  every 
one  of  them  under  elocutionary  control.  Some 
aid  may  be  obtained  from  the  advice  and  sugges- 
tions of  teachers  or  friends,  since  we  cannot  see 
ourselves  as  others  see  us ;  but  the  chief  progress 
and  final  success  of  the  student  must  depend  on 
his  own  efforts.  I  have  insisted  on  this  cardinal 
point  —  a  man's  ability  to  teach  himself—  at  much 
length,  because  I  think  it  should  be  both  under- 
stood and  believed.  If  you  lack  faith  in  its  im- 
portance or  its  feasibility,  you  will  make  little 
progress  in  pursuing  it. 

If  any  of  you  would  take  the  trouble  to  watch 
the  familiar  conversation  of  two  or  more  persons, 
young  or  old,  you  would  discover  one  fact,  which, 
unless  your  attention  has  been  previously  directed 
to  the  subject,  you  may  have  never  yet  known  or 
thought  of,  —  namely,  that  the  tones  of  the  several 
speakers  run  through  almost  every  note  of  a  musi- 
cal octave,  and  that  hardly  three  consecutive  words 
are  uttered  in,  or  on,  the  same  note.  That  is  to 
say,  ordinary  and  natural  conversation  is  uncon- 
sciously carried  on  in  a  great  variety  of  tones. 
Yet,  let  one  of  those  talkers,  in  the  midst  of  that 
conversation,  read  a  paragraph  from  a  book  or  a 
newspaper,  and  he  will  immediately  assume  a  mo- 
notonous utterance,  rendering  entire  lines  on  a 
single  note,  and  probably  giving  the  last  word  of 
every  sentence  also  on  one,  but  a  lower,  note.  He 
will  almost  certainly  do  this  —  that  is,  end  all  his 


196  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

sentences  on  one  note  —  if  he  reads  the  Bible. 
For  of  all  methods  that  human  ingenuity  could  de- 
vise, if  employed  for  the  express  purpose  of  ren- 
dering good  reading  impossible,  the  division  of  the 
Bible  into  verses  is  the  best. 

We  are  so  accustomed  to  this  typographical  ar- 
rangement, that  we  are  not  only  resigned  to  it,  but 
we  are  also  partly  insensible  to  its  great  defects. 
Yet  a  moment's  consideration  as  to  the  effect  of 
a  similar  disfiguration  of  any  other  book  —  the 
"  Spectator,"  for  example  —  would  show  its  inhe- 
rent monstrosity.  The  single  and  imaginary  ad- 
vantage of  this  division  is,  its  facilitating  the  search 
for  any  particular  passage  ;  but  for  all  ordinary  oc- 
casions —  indeed  for  any  occasion  —  the  designa- 
tion of  a  chapter  is  sufficiently  explicit :  while  the 
disadvantages  of  the  division  are  real,  and  of  par- 
amount importance.  Such  a  division  is,  in  fact, 
equivalent  to  printing  the  Bible  in  a  new  language  ; 
or,  at  least,  a  language  newly  constructed  and  sub- 
ject to  new  laws  of  composition  :  a  language,  or  a 
style  of  language,  that  is  perverted  from  the  form 
in  which  its  original  translators  presented  it  to  the 
world,  and  that  is  an  abrogation  of  the  form  in 
which  any  living  language  is  printed. 

One  essential  principle  of  printed  or  written  lan- 
guage is,  the  assignment  of  a  separate  section  or 
paragraph  to  each  division,  or  branch,  of  a  subject, 
—  an  arrangement  originating  in  a  literal  necessi- 
ty,—  an  arrangement  that  simplifies  the  compre- 
hension of  what  is  written  to  a  degree  that,  perhaps, 


CLERICAL  ELOCUIION.  197 

is  fully  appreciated  only  when  it  is  repudiated. 
The  eye  and  the  mind  of  a  reader  rest  on,  and  de- 
pend on,  the  paragraphical  divisions  as  on  beacons 
or  landmarks  ;    and  when  those  are  in  sight,  he 
proceeds  safely  and  confidently  on  his  voyage  ;  but 
when  they  are  removed,  — or,  what  is  worse,  when 
they  are  replaced  by  false  beacons,  —  he  cannot  be 
sure  of  his  course.     He  may  have  studied  his  way 
by  the  chart,  and  may  think  that  he  has  mastered 
its  sinuosities ;   but  the  misleading  power  of  the 
verse  divisions  —  which  seem  to  be  guides  and  are 
not  —  constantly  betrays  him  into  difficulty.     And, 
as  if  this  minute  and  perplexing  subdivision  were 
not  enough,  many  editions  of  the  Bible  are  cum- 
bered with  asterisks,  letters,  and  numbers,  refer- 
ring to  marginal  notes,  and  with  interpolated  par- 
allel readings ;  and  all  these  are  so  intermingled 
with  the  punctuation,  that,  to  renew  the  metaphor, 
the  channel  is  choked  with  shallows  and  snags,  and 
no  amount  of  coolness,  skill,  or  foresight  can  carry 
the  navigator  safely  through  its  perils.    The  act  of 
reading  through  clearly  defined  paragraphs  is  quite 
enough  to  tax  all  the  powers  of  a  reader ;  it  is  all 
he  can  do  to  read  well,  when  his  course  is  free  from 
typographical  obstacles  ;  and  his  mind  and  eye  are 
sufficiently  occupied  while  rendering  language  that 
is  divested  }f  adventitious  impediments :  but  when 
his  attention  is  divided  between  the  ship  and  the 
rocks,  —  when  he  must  keep  one  eye  on  the  engine 
and  another  on  the  wheel,  —  his  faculties  become 
overtasked,  and  he  can  hardly  escape  shipwreck. 


198  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

In  these  circumstances,  a  due  regard  to  the  vari- 
ous requisites  of  elocution  is  impossible ;  but  the 
reader  of  the  Bible  in  verses  is  apt  not  only  to  read 
ill  generally ;  he  is  also  apt  to  read  ill  particularly, 
in  the  matter  of  a  constantly  recurring  period  on 
one  note.  It  is  common,  in  the  reading  of  any 
other  book,  for  the  reader  to  begin  a  paragraph  on 
one  note,  and  end  it,  also,  on  one  note ;  but  the 
usual  length  of  a  paragraph  prevents  the  sound  of 
that  from  becoming  disagreeable,  or  observable. 
It  is  harmless  from  its  infrequency.  But  when  the 
same  thing  occurs  at  the  end  of  every  second  or 
third  line,  it  becomes  offensive  by  its  dull,  unmean- 
ing monotony.  It  degenerates  from  reading  to  a 
sort  of  recitative;  the  words  fall  successively  on  the 
ear  without  reaching  the  understanding,  as  drops 
of  water  from  a  leaky  reservoir,  in  ever-beginning, 
never-ending  routine ;  and  the  effect  on  an  audi- 
tor's nerves  is  the  same  as  would  be  produced  by 
any  succession  of  sounds  that  have  no  meaning 
whatever :  —  as,  one,  two,  three,  four,  five;  one, 
two,  three,  four ;  one,  two,  three,  four,  five,  six, 
seven,  eight,  nine;  one,  two,  three";  and  so  on,  the 
single  characteristic  being  the  iitterance  of  every 
word  but  the  last  on  one  note,  and  the  last  also 
always  on  one,  but  a  lower,  note.  This  may  seem 
to  be  exaggerated.  But  if  you  will  listen  to  any 
ordinary  reading  of  the  Bible,  keeping  this  point 
in  mind,  you  will  not  listen  often  without  hearing 
precisely  that  succession  of  dull,  uniform  sounds. 

One  remedy  for  this  obstacle  to  good  reading  is, 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  199 

tlie  use  of  a  Paragraph  Bible,  of  which  two  or  three 
editions  are  extant.  I  wish  they  were  more  com- 
mon ;  and  I  doubt  whether  the  American  Bible 
Society  could  render  to  elocution  a  service  greater 
than  making  them  so. 

One  thing  more  remains  to  be  said  on  this  sub- 
ject, —  namely,  a  suggestion  on  the  injury  to  the 
voice,  produced  by  the  habit  of  monotonous  de- 
livery. 

You  are  all  aware,  from  your  own  observation, 
that  a  man  can  talk  through  a  whole  evening  with 
less  fatigue  to  his  vocal  organs  than  would  ensue 
from  his  reading  half  an  hour.  Why  is  this  ?  The 
human  voice  is  like  a  stringed  instrument  of  music. 
It  has  a  certain  number  —  more  or  less  in  individ- 
ual cases  —  of  tones,  or  notes ;  and,  in  common 
conversation,  almost  every  one  of  these  notes  is 
brought  into  use :  and,  when  used  properly,  each 
is  kept  in  order,  and  even  improved,  by  use.  But 
if  two  or  three  only  are  used,  as  in  monotonous 
reading,  they  become  fatigued  and  permanently 
injured  by  being  used  too  much ;  while  the  others 
become  rusty,  weak,  discordant,  from  not  being 
used  at  all.  In  other  words,  and  to  drop  the  meta- 
phor, the  diseases  of  the  throat,  so  common  among 
the  clergy,  are  easily  and  directly  traced  to  their 
habit  of  monotonous  delivery. 

The  next  point  to  which  I  would  call  your  atten- 
tion is  audibleness ;  a  matter,  in  one  respect,  more 
important  than  any  other  principle  of  elocution; 
for,  if  a  clergyman's  words  cannot  be  heard  by  his 


200  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

congregation,  it  is  quite  immaterial  how  well  or  ill 
they  are  delivered. 

The  want  of  audibleness  prevails  to  a  greater 
extent  among  clergymen  than,  probably,  they  them- 
selves are  aware.  Many  of  them,  even,  who  have 
great  vocal  power,  and  are  conscious  that  the  sound 
of  their  voices  fills  a  church,  are  still  entirely  defi- 
cient in  distinct  articulation,  because  they  project 
the  words  from  the  roof  of  the  mouth  instead  of  from 
their  lips ;  and  the  result  is  a  confusion  of  sounds 
without  any  syllabication.  Others  speak  from  the 
throat  in  a  hollow,  sepulchral  tone,  and  with  an  elab- 
oration of  syllables  and  emphasis  so  mixed  togeth- 
er that  no  ear  can  eliminate  the  individual  words. 
Others,  again,  drop  the  voice  to  a  whisper  at  the  end 
of  a  sentence ;  and,  as  this  habit,  like  any  habit  good 
or  bad,  increases  by  use,  they  eventually  pronounce 
not  only  the  last  word,  but  many  preceding  words, 
in  the  same  low  tone.  Others  have  a  trick  of  clip- 
ping their  words,  which  sacrifices  a  considerable 
proportion  of  monosyllables,  and  reduces  words  of 
three  or  four  syllables,  to  two.  And,  again,  some 
men  of  a  sensitive  temperament  allow  their  feelings 
to  run  away  with  their  faculties  in  impassioned  or 
pathetic  sentences,  so  that  their  utterance  is  im- 
peded or  choked  by  the  internal  impulse,  and  dis- 
tinct articulation  becomes  impossible. 

Those  five  specifications  include  readers  or  speak- 
ers who  are  unconscious  of  being  inaudible,  and 
who,  therefore,  are  at  no  pains  to  amend  their 
errors.  But  there  is  a  large  class  of  clergymen 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  201 

who  know  the  difficulty  of  making  themselves 
heard,  without  knowing  the  right  method  to  over- 
come it.  Their  custom  is  to  raise  the  voice  a  note 
or  two  above  its  natural  key,  and  then  exert  all 
their  vocal  power  upon  that  false  key.  This  soon 
exhausts  the  speaker,  but  it  does  not  help  the 
hearer.  Every  man  has  one  natural  key,  and  the 
moment  he  abandons  that,  he  loses  all  proper 
control  of  his  voice ;  he  has  little  power  over  his 
emphasis,  and  none  over  his  modulations  or  in- 
flections ;  and  his  utterances,  like  false  coin,  come 
back  to  him  without  having  performed  their  office. 

And  in  addition  to  these  specified  causes  of  inaudi- 
bleness,  there  remains  the  entire  category  of  elocu- 
tionary faults  that  I  have  already  designated  as  ap- 
pertaining to  any  delivery  that  is  artificial,  —  any- 
thing out  of  one's  Own  tone  and  manner.  In  short, 
each  and  every  form  of  vocal  utterance  which  is 
not  literally  and  strictly  the  natural  manner  of  the 
speaker  or  reader,  apart  from  an  audience,  will 
certainly  be  inaudible  in  the  exact  ratio  of  its  vari- 
ation from  nature.  So  that  the  various  styles  of 
false  elocution  not  only  fail  to  catch  the  sympathy 
of  an  auditor,  but  they  also,  in  proportion  as  they 
are  false,  fail  to  reach  his  ears. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  correct  elocutionist  suc- 
ceeds in  every  point  where  the  pretenders  fail. 
For,  when  he  has  once  brought  his  tone  and  man- 
ner to  the  requisite  standard,  he  has  but  to  throw 
additional  force  into  his  voice,  without  raising  its 
key,  and  he  will  be  distinctly  heard  in  any  part  of  a 


202  CLEKICAL  ELOCUTION. 

church  that  is  properly  constructed  and  is  of  mod- 
erate size.  This  principle  is  perfectly  simple,  and  it 
is  corroborated  by  the  same  principle  in  music.  A 
church  choir,  if  practising  in  a  parlour,  will  neces- 
sarily preserve  the  key  of  the  several  tunes,  while, 
however,  they  graduate  the  force  of  their  voices  to 
the  size  of  the  apartment ;  and  when  they  practise 
or  sing  in  a  church,  they  give  their  full  power  of 
voice,  but  still  always  on  the  same  key.  If  they 
should  change  the  key,  they  would  not  be  heard 
the  better,  but  their  rendering  of  the  music  would 
be  altogether  the  worse,  by  reason  of  the  change. 

I  have  now  submitted  to  your  consideration  the 
subjects,  severally,  of  natural  and  affected  delivery ; 
audible  and  inaudible  delivery ;  and  the  importance 
of  a  careful  study  of  what  is  to  be  delivered,  in  the 
various  services  of  the  Church.  And,  thus  far,  I 
have  entered  but  slightly  upon  practical  illustra- 
tion, because  to  do  so  would  require  more  time 
than  is  now  at  my  disposal.  But  I  must  warn  you 
against  disregarding  the  precepts  you  have  heard, 
on  the  ground  that  they  have  not  been  more  fully 
supported  by  illustrations.  No  man  can  safely 
natter  himself  that  the  obstacles  to  good  reading 
are  imaginary,  or  that  he  has  a  peculiar  faculty  for 
overcoming  them  without  labour.  Such  an  opinion 
would  prove  nothing  but  his  own  obtuseness,  and  it 
would  certainly  be  reversed  by  his  auditors.  He 
may  deceive  himself,  but  he  cannot  deceive  them. 
True  elocution  goes  straight  to  the  understanding 
and  the  heart ;  every  listener  is  a  judge  of  it  by  ii< 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  203 

stinct ;  and  bad  reading  must  create  dissatisfaction, 
though  it  may  not  elicit  open  complaint. 

And  it  is  by  no  means  as  a  mere  matter  of  taste, 
or  in  subordination  to  exacting  criticism,  that  accu- 
rate elocution  is  to  be  required  at  the  hands  of  the 
clergy.  Men  must  be  taken  as  they  are.  They 
must  be  dealt  with,  by  their  spiritual  teacher,  ac- 
cording to  their  infirmities.  They  may  be  un- 
reasonable in  their  tacit,  or  expressed,  demands 
for  the  outward  accomplishments  of  a  clergyman. 
But  the  one  great  duty  of  those  who  preach  the 
Gospel  is  to  call  sinners  to  repentance  ;  and  they 
should  labour  to  make  that  call  effectual  by  adapt- 
ing it  to  human  weaknesses,  and  by  embellishing 
it  with  all  the  attractions  which  their  ability  can 
supply.  The  greater  the  apathy  or  the  obstinacy 
of  the  hearer,  the  more  need  is  there  for  the  im- 
pressive and  persuasive  elocution  of  the  preacher. 
And,  surely,  no  amount  of  time,  care,  or  study  de- 
voted to  that  end,  can  be  said  to  be  lost. 

When  you  come  to  apply  these  general  prin- 
ciples to  the  delivery  of  particular  parts  of  the 
service,  and  when  you  have  thoroughly  ascertained 
the  meaning  of  what  is  before  you,  emphasis  be- 
comes your  primary  consideration.  By  way  of 
an  example,  we  will  take  a  sentence  in  which  — 
excepting,  indeed,  audibleness — emphasis  is  the 
sole  elocutionary  requisite ;  for  it  is  so  simply  con- 
structed that  neither  pause  nor  inflection  has  much 
to  do  with  its  proper  delivery ;  and,  if  the  emphasis 
is  rightly  placed,  the  meaning  cannot  be  mistaken  j 


204  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

while,  on  the  other  hand,  a  wrong  emphasis  com- 
pletely neutralizes  the  spirit  of  the  words.  I  refer 
to  the  ninth  commandment. 

Strange  as  it  is,  it  is  not  the  less  true,  that  this 
passage  is  read  wrong  more  commonly  than,  per- 
haps, any  other  in  the  Bible.  One  reason  for  this 
is,  probably,  that  each  of  the  four  commandments, 
from  the  sixth  to  the  ninth,  contains  a  single  pro- 
hibitory precept  in  a  single  line ;  and,  in  the  first 
three,  the  substance  of  the  prohibition  lies  in  the 
last  word  ;  so  that  when  the  reader,  by  a  sort  of 
routine,  has  said,  "Thou  shalt  do  no  murder"  ; 
"  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery  "  ;  "  Thou  shalt 
not  steal "  ;  it  would  seem  to  be,  as  it  generally 
proves  to  be,  a  matter  of  course  that  he  should 
add,  "  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false-witness  against  thy 
neighbour"  But  "  neighbour  "  is  no  part  of  the 
gravamen  of  the  prohibition.  If  it  were  so,  false- 
witness  against  any  one  else  would  not  be  inter- 
dicted by  the  mandate.  The  essence  of  the  inter- 
dict is  false-witness;  as  is  shown,  if  proof  were 
needed,  by  our  Saviour's  recapitulation  of  the 
commandments  to  the  young  man  who  "  had  great 
possessions,"  Matthew  xix.  Some  clergymen,  with 
similar  want  of  reflection,  place  the  emphasis  on 
*'  against  "  ;  thus  virtually  implying  that  false-wit- 
ness in  a  neighbour's  favour  might  be  permitted. 
But  the  true  reading  renders  literally  wwemphatic 
every  word  except  the  thing  forbidden  ;  and  as  the 
last  three  words  are,  in  an  elocutionary  sense,  su- 
perfluous, they  should,  as  to  emphasis,  be  disre- 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  205 

garded ;  thus,  "  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false-witness 
against  thy  neighbour." 

And  here  let  me  remark,  briefly,  that  a  slight 
pause  after —  or,  according  to  the  form  of  the  sen- 
tence, before  —  an  emphatic  word,  adds  force  to 
the  emphasis.  A  very  little  addition  to  the  voice, 
followed  —  or,  in  certain  cases,  preceded  —  by  a 
momentary  pause,  gives,  in  fact,  a  better  effect 
than  speaking  a  word  in  a  loud  tone. 

There  is  another  class  of  instances  where  a  wrong 
emphasis  is  very  common,  without  being  fatal  to 
the  sense  of  the  passage,  although  the  error  weak- 
ens its  force.  For  example,  the  phrases  "  King  of 
kings,"  "Lord  of  lords,"  "Hebrew  of  the  He- 
brews," etc.  The  preposition  is  here  used  out  of 
its  ordinary  sense,  and  it  signifies  over,  above,  chief 
among;  and  that  meaning  comes  out  distinctly 
with  the  emphasis,  making  the  difference  between 
"  Lord  of  lords  "  and  "  Lord  of  lords  "  obvious  to 
the  most  superficial  observation.  And  if  an  "  of" 
is  thus  important,  an  and  may  be  even  more  so. 
"  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  Mammon,"  is  the  usual 
reading  of  that  line;  yet  that  reading  implies 
something  in  common  between  the  two  names ; 
whereas,  "  God  and  Mammon  "  develops  the  an- 
tithesis, which  is  the  point  of  the  assertion. 

Those  are  a  few  of  the  simple  passages  that  are 
almost  constantly  wwread ;  which  shows  how  little 
care  clergymen  bestow  on  what  they  read;  and  it 
therefore  is  not  strange  that  the  niceties  of  more 
complex  sentences  are  overlooked.  Examples  of 


206  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

the  latter  kind  are  abundant ;  but  as  I  am  just  now 
citing  the  force  of  small  words,  we  will  take  the 
'•'  it "  of  the  fourth  verse  of  the  twelfth  chapter  of 
the  Second  Book  of  Samuel:  "  And  there  came  a 
traveller  unto  the  rich  man,  and  he  spared  to  take 
of  his  own  flock,  and  of  his  own  herd,  to  dress  for 
the  wayfaring  man  that  was  come  unto  him ;  but 
took  the  poor  man's  lamb  and  dressed  it  for  the 
man  that  was  come  to  him." 

In  the  twenty-sixth  verse  of  the  ninth  chapter  of 
St.  John,  there  is  an  instance  of  the  power  of  em- 
phatic monosyllables,  when  accompanied  by  the  ris- 
ing inflection.  And  as  this  is  my  first  particular 
reference  to  inflections,  I  will  mention  the  rule  that 
regulates  them  when  applied  to  interrogatories. 
The  rule  is,  that  questions  which  need  a  response 
of  yes  or  no,  require  the  rising,  and  all  other  ques- 
tions, the  falling,  inflection.  The  rule  is  general ; 
but,  as  applied  to  isolated  inquiries,  it  is  a  rule 
almost  without  an  exception.  In  the  verse  re- 
ferred to,  you  will  see  that  the  emphasizing  of 
"  what  "  and  "  how,"  with  a  disregard  of  the  rule 
of  inflection,  suggests,  even  to  one  who  has  not 
heard  the  preceding  verses  of  the  chapter,  that  the 
two  questions  are  a  repetition,  in  brief,  of  what  has 
already  been  asked  at  more  length.  And  not  only 
so,  but  —  what  is  much  more  relative  to  the  princi- 
ple I  have  insisted  on,  namely,  the  importance  of 
making  the  language  of  others  our  own  —  that 
emphasis  and  that  inflection  are  certainly  just  what 
the  actual  speakers  in  the  Gospel  narrative  would 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  207 

have  used.  The  verse  referred  to  is,  "  Then  said 
they  to  him  again,  WJiat  did  he  to  thee  ?  how 
opened  he  thine  eyes  ?  " 

I  will  give  one  more  example  of  the  importance 
of  mere  emphasis,  apart  from  other  elements  of 
elocution  ;  and  this  is  worthy  of  notice  from  the 
fact,  that,  while  the  passage  in  Matthew  requires  a 
certain  emphasis  to  develop  its  full  force,  the  same 
words  in  Luke  require  a  different  emphasis,  by 
reason  of  the  occurrence  of  the  word  "  prophet "  in 
the  immediately  preceding  verse.  The  verses  are, 
respectively,  the  thirty-seventh  of  the  twenty-third 
chapter  of  Matthew,  and  the  thirty-third  and  thirty 
fourth  of  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Luke.  In 
Matthew  we  read  :  "  0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  thou 
that  killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  which 
are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  /  have  gath- 
ered thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth 
her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not!" 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  additional  force  given  to  that  verse  by  chang- 
ing the  emphasis  from  "killest"  and  "stonest," 
which  is  the  common  reading,  to  prophets  and 
sent;  the  change  makes  obvious  the  difference  in 
aggravation  between  the  two  crimes  of,  so  to  speak, 
a  common  murder  and  the  murder  of  one  sent  from 
God.  But  that  emphasis  cannot  be  properly  given 
to  the  same  words  in  Luke,  because  the  preceding 
verse  is :  "  Nevertheless,  I  must  walk  to-day  and  to- 
morrow, and  the  day  following :  for  it  cannot  be 
that  a  prophet  perish  out  of.  Jerusalem."  As 


208  CLEKICAL  ELOCUTION. 

"  prophet "  is  used  in  this  verse,  and  is  emphatic, 
it  cannot  properly  be  emphasized  again  in  the  very 
next  line. 

The  second  sentence  of  the  Prayer  Book,  "  From 
the  rising,"  etc.,  is  another  instance  of  a  passage 
that  requires  a  change  of  reading  with  a  change  of 
connection :  the  change  of  reading,  however,  is  not 
one  of  emphasis,  but  of  inflection,  and  it  develops 
the  comparative  power  of  the  rising  and  falling  in- 
flection in  the  particular  case.  The  verse  is  the 
eleventh  of  the  first  chapter  of  Malachi,  and  it  is 
adopted  into  the  Prayer  Book  with  the  omission  of 
its  first  word ;  which  word  is  essential  in  the  con- 
text by  reason  of  its  connection ;  but  is  superfluous 
in  the  Liturgy,  because  the  prophecy  is  there  used 
independently  of  antecedents. 

Malachi,  in  the  tenth  verse,  denounces  the  irre- 
ligion  of  the  Israelites ;  and,  in  the  eleventh,  con- 
trasts their  condition  with  the  coming  state  of  the 
Gentiles.  The  eleventh  verse  commences  with  the 
word  "  For,"  which  is  omitted  in  the  Prayer  Book. 
" For"  is  here  equivalent  to  farf,  as  will  soon  be 
shown  ;  but  the  whole  verse,  as  quoted  in  the 
Prayer  Book,  should  first  be  analyzed. 

The  antithesis  of  the  rising  and  setting  sun  un- 
mistakably indicates  the  proper  emphasis  of  that 
phrase ;  but  the  reference  to  the  sun's  apparent 
motion  is  one  of  locality,  not  of  time  ;  it  does  not 
mean  from  the  hour  of  the  rising  to  the  setting,  but 
from  the  place  of  the  rising  to  the  setting,  —  that 
is,  over  the  whole  earth.  And  hence,  in  the  second 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  209 

clause  of  the  verse,  "  every  place  "  is  not  emphatic, 
because  that  phrase  is  virtually  a  repetition  as  to 
space  occupied,  or  to  be  occupied,  while  it  contains 
an  additional  prophecy  relative  to  the  works,  as  the 
first  clause  of  the  verse  relates  to  the  faith,  of 
the  Gentiles.  Therefore,  the  "  incense  "  offered  be- 
comes emphatic  in  that  clause,  as  does  the  quality 
of  the  offering  —  "pure"  —  in  the  second  clause. 
And  in  the  third  clause  —  which  is  a  repetition  as 
to  the  "  Name  "  of  the  Lord,  but  which  refers  to 
a  people  other  than  Jew  or  Gentile,  namely,  the 
heathen  —  that  term  becomes  emphatic.  The  read- 
ing of  the  Prayer  Book  version  is,  therefore,  "  From 
the  rising  of  the  sun,  even  unto  the  going  down  of 
the  same,  my  name  shall  be  yreat  among  the  G-en- 
tiles^;  and  in  every  place  incense  shall  be  offered 
unto  my  name,  and  a  pure  offering :  for  my  name 
shall  be  great  among  the  heathen,  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts." 

But  when  the  tenth  and  eleventh  verses  of  Mala- 
chi  are  taken  together,  a  different  reading  becomes 
necessary.  Thus :  "  Who  is  there  even  among 
you  that  would  shut  the  doors  for  nought  ?  neither 
do  ye  kindle  fire  on  mine  altar  for  nought.  I  have 
vio  pleasure  in  you,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  neither 
irill  I  accept  an  offering  at  your  hand"  " For," 
[that  is,  but]  "  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  even  unto 
the  going  down  of  the  same,  my  name  shall  be  great 
among  the  Cr entiles  "  etc. 

Now  apply  the  falling  inflection  to  the  "  Gen- 
tiles," and  you  will  see  the  difference :  "  I  have  no 


210  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

pleasure  in  you,  neither  will  I  accept  an  offering  at 
your  hand.  But  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  even 
unto  the  going  doivn  of  the  same,  my  name  shall 
be  great  among  the  G-entiles" 

You  perceive  how  much  force  is  given  to  the 
passage  by  the  rising  inflection  on  "  Gentiles," 
though  you  may  not  perceive  the  reason.  And,  for 
my  own  part,  I  must  confess  that  I  am  not  prepared 
to  enlighten  you.  The  difference  between  the  two 
inflections  strikes  my  ear  and  commends  itself  to 
my  judgment  by  a  process  much  shorter  than 
reasoning,  and  I  feel  the  result  without  being  able 
to  account  for  it. 

In  one  respect  this  citation  is  of  no  practical  im- 
portance, because  the  first  chapter  of  Malachi  is 
not  appointed  to  be  read  in  the  Church  Service ; 
but  it  furnishes  another  example  of  the  proper 
method  of  analyzing  a  sentence  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  its  emphatic  words ;  and  it  is  another 
proof  of  the  power  of  the  rising  inflection,  in  cer 
tain  cases. 

Perhaps  no  instance  of  the  power  of  a  false  em- 
phasis to  destroy  the  meaning  of  a  passage,  is  more 
striking  than  one  that  can  be  applied  to  the  eigh- 
teenth verse  of  the  second  chapter  of  St.  Matthew : 

"  In  Rama  was  there  a  voice  heard ;  lamentation, 
and  weeping,  and  great  mourning  ;  Rachel  weeping 
for  her  children,  and  would  not  be  comforted,  be- 
cause they  are  not":  that  is,  because  they  live 
not,  exist  hot :  which  is  one  of  the  meanings  of 
the  verb  to  be,  though  it  is  seldom  so  used  at  pres- 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  211 

ent.  "Are"  is,  of  course,  the  emphatic  word  in 
the  last  line.  But  see  the  result  of  transferring 
the  emphasis  to  they!  — 

"  Rachel  weeping  for  her  children,  and  would  not 
be  comforted,  because  they  are  not":  which  has  the 
strange  effect  of  rendering  a  repetition  of  "  com- 
forted," an  understood  part  of  the  sentence,  and 
which  changes  the  meaning  to,  "  Rachel  would 
not  be  comforted  because  her  children  are  not  com- 
forted." 

These  few  instances  serve  to  show  the  great  im- 
portance of  emphasis,  and  the  necessity  for  a  care- 
ful study  of  even  the  most  simple  sentence,  in 
order  to  ascertain  its  emphatic  words.  But  we 
must  remember,  that,  while  a  neglect  of  emphasis 
is  fatal  to  elocution,  the  abuse  of  it  is  equally  dis- 
astrous. To  overdo  it  is  as  bad  as  to  omit  it.  In- 
deed, the  two  things  come  to  the  same  result ;  for, 
if  emphasis  is  distributed  indiscriminately,  it,  like 
indiscriminately  lavished  honours,  ceases  to  have 
any  value  whatever.  If  a  sentence  has  but  two 
emphatic  words,  and,  nevertheless,  thrice  that  num- 
ber are  emphasized ;  all  the  distinction  aimed  at,  is 
lost.  I  enlarge  on  this  truism,  because  many  read- 
ers fall  into  this  error.  In  their  anxiety  to  make 
the  most  of  a  sentence,  they  emphasize  it  down  to 
zero.  It  follows,  then,  that,  as  there  is  no  manual, 
or  formulary,  by  which  emphatic  words  may  be  as- 
certained, their  discovery  must  be  left  to  study  and 
to  "private  judgment."  As  Hamlet  says,  "yoiir 
own  discretion  must  be  your  tutor."  And  thus,  IP 


212  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

regard  to  this  branch  of  our  subject,  we  come  back 
to  the  cardinal  point,  so  often  insisted  on,  —  that 
a  man  at  least  may  be  his  own  teacher.  For,  any 
man  of  cultivation  and  ordinary  intelligence  can, 
by  his  own  efforts,  ascertain  the  philological  mean- 
ing of  any  passage  of  Scripture  ;  and  when  he  has 
done  that,  he  has  done  all  that  is  needed  to  show 
what  are  the  emphatic  words  of  such  passage. 

The  chief  topics  remaining  to  be  considered  are 
pause,  modulation,  and  inflection.  But  they  can- 
not be  discussed  by  means  of  general  precepts. 
Their  disposition,  in  each  several  instance,  depends 
on  the  character  of  the  passage  to  be  read ;  and 
their  treatment,  therefore,  must  be  practical,  and 
must  be  applied  to  the  sentences  or  paragraphs 
selected  for  illustration. 

I  would  like,  now,  briefly  to  call  your  attention  to 
some  remarks  applicable  generally  to  the  manner 
and  deportment  of  an  officiating  clergyman. 

Of  the  difficulties  that  beset  a  young  man  at  the 
commencement  of  his  public  duties  in  the  Church, 
the  first  in  order,  and  —  while  it  continues  —  the 
first  in  importance,  is  embarrassment.  Until  he  can 
divest  himself  of  that,  all  his  proficiency  in  elocu- 
tion will  be  of  little  use  ;  for,  while  under  that  in- 
cubus, he  can  not  practise  what  he  has  learned  of 
reading  or  speaking,  any  more  than  a  man  can  walk 
or  use  his  arms  when  he  is  bound  hand  and  foot  with 
cords.  And,  what  makes  the  matter  worse,  he  gets 
no  sympathy  from  his  audience ;  they  make  no  al- 
lowance for  his  dilemma,  —  partly  because  they  are 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  213 

not  aware  of  it,  and  partly  because  they  see  no 
reason  for  it.  The  majority  of  a  congregation  will 
perceive  the  effect,  but  remain  ignorant,  or  unmind- 
ful, of  the  cause ;  and  the  remainder,  not  being 
themselves  embarrassed,  cannot  see  why  the  clergy- 
man should  be  so.  But,  for  all  that,  he  is  so  ;  it  is 
in  the  nature  of  things  that  he  should  be  so ;  and 
he  is  nearly  helpless  while  he  remains  so.  And 
another  unfortunate  feature  of  the  case  is,  that  em- 
barrassment, above  all  other  elocutionary  obstacles, 
is  the  most  difficult  to  control ;  because  it  depends 
on  the  nerves  rather  than  on  the  will ;  and  the 
nerves,  in  Shakespeare's  phrase,  "  will  not  be  com- 
manded" :  they  cannot  even  be  reasoned  with;  and 
the  only  sure  way  of  escaping  their  tyranny  is,  as  an 
Irishman  might  say,  to  submit  to  it,  as  one  does  to 
sea-sickness,  "  until  the  tyranny  be  overpast."  In 
other  words,  it  is  a  kind  of  disease  which  the  ma- 
jority of  clergymen  must  have  once,  though  some 
will  have  it  more  lightly  than  others ;  and  it  can  be 
treated  only  by  palliatives.  There  is  no  preven- 
tion, and  no  summary  cure.  The  best  method  of 
dealing  with  it  is,  perhaps,  the  novice's  accustom- 
ing himself  to  the  night  of  a  congregation,  by  sit- 
ting for  a  few  Sundays  in  the  chancel  without  offi- 
ciating at  all ;  and,  after  that,  to  undertake  at  first 
but  a  small  portion  of  the  service ;  and  thus,  by 
degrees,  to  familiarize  himself  to  the  situation,  and 
to  the  sound  of  his  own  voice  in  the  situation. 

That  suggestion,  however,  may  be  supererogatory 
on  my  part ;  for  what  I  thus  advise  may  already  be 


214  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

an  adopted  custom.  And,  indeed,  it  is  quite  possi- 
ble that  many  of  my  suggestions  are  not  new,  and 
might  better  have  been  spared.  But,  in  submit- 
ting to  you  my  views  on  elocution,  it  appeared  to 
me  the  safer  course  to  present  the  whole  case,  so 
far  as  I  can ;  for  if  I  were  to  assume  that  you  are 
partly  informed,  and  were  I  therefore  to  omit  some 
things  conjecturally,  in  deference  to  what  you  may 
already  know,  I  might  happen  to  omit  so  much  as 
to  leave  you  in  doubt  whether  I  myself  understand 
what  I  have  undertaken  to  communicate. 

Assuming,  now,  that  embarrassment  has  run  its 
course,  and  is  disposed  of,  —  a  result  that  necessa- 
rily depends  on  yourselves,  for  no  one  can  materi- 
ally aid  you,  —  the  next  point  is,  a  special  study  of 
the  services  of  the  day,  so  that  you  shall  perfectly 
understand  what  you  are  to  read,  and  how  to  read 
it.  This  study  must  be  private  ;  and,  at  whatever 
outlay  of  patient  toil  it  may  at  first  be  undertaken, 
you  should  read,  and  re-read,  aloud,  every  sen- 
tence, until  you  have  disciplined  yourselves,  com- 
pelled yourselves,  to  bring  your  reading  utterances 
into  exact  harmony  with  your  colloquial  tones. 
And,  when  you  enter  the  church,  you  should 
entirely  divest  yourselves  of  that  unfortunate,  fatal, 
preconceived  notion  entertained  by  so  many  men, 
that  your  own  natural  voice  is  not  suited  to  relig- 
ious services. 

Your  next  consideration  is  audibleness ;  to  se- 
cure which  you  must  not  raise  the  key  of  the  voice, 
but  give  more  strength  to  it  on  its  natural  key ; 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  215 

and  you  may  be  assured,  despite  any  previous  im- 
pression to  the  contrary,  that  if  your  words  are 
distinctly  articulated  on  the  true  key,  they  will  cer- 
tainly make  their  way  to  the  ears  of  the  congrega- 
tion.    It  would,  however,  be  a  wise  precaution  to 
secure  the  attendance  of  two  or  three  friends  in 
different  parts  of  the  church,  whose  special  purpose 
shall  be  to  ascertain  whether  you  make  yourselves 
heard  ;  because,  some  additional  strength  of  voice 
being  necessary,  no  one  can  tell  precisely  how  much 
is  wanted,  without  more  or  less  of  practical  experi- 
ment ;  and,  besides,  too  much  additional  strength 
is  as  undesirable  for  the  speaker,  as  too  little  is  for 
the  hearer.     In  this,  as  in  other  things,  the  happy 
medium  is  the  desideratum.     One  thing,  however, 
is  to  be  noted :  the  additional  strength  should  be 
equally   applied  to  every  word.     Many  clergymen 
whose  delivery  is  what  may  be  called  of  a  proper 
average  strength,  distribute  the  strength  so  unequal- 
ly as  to  fail  of  making  themselves  heard.     The 
same  thing  occurs  with  many  of  us  in  conversation 
with  a  person  partially  deaf.     We  speak  the  larger 
and  the  more  important  words  in  a  tone  unneces- 
sarily loud,  and  the  monosyllables  proportionate- 
ly low,  and  our  sentences  become  unintelligible  for 
want  of  the  small  connecting  words.     Any  famil- 
iar remark  will  illustrate  this  ;  for  instance,  "  I  am 
surprised  at  what  you  tell  me."     If  that  is  spoken 
in  the  ordinary  way,  thus :  [repeated  orally,']  each 
word   is   moderately   pronounced,   with    a    slight 
emphasis  on  the  second   syllable  of  "  surprised." 


216  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

But  many  persons,  in  saying  that  to  one  partially 
deaf,  would  vociferate  "prised"  and  "  tell"  and  so 
hurry  and  mumble  every  other  syllable  of  the  sen- 
tence that  not  one  of  them  would  be  really  audible 
to  anybody ;  thus :  [repeated  orally.']  The  point 
to  be  secured  is,  a  sufficiency  of  strength  with  a  uni- 
formity of  application. 

When  a  clergyman  is  reading  the  Lessons,  he 
should  remember  that  he  is  reading  the  Lessons, 
and  keep  his  eyes  fixed  on  the  Bible.  There  are 
many  readers  who  seem  to  practise  on  the  problem, 
how  much  they  can  repeat  while  looking  away  from 
the  book !  and  sometimes  that  really  seems  to  be 
their  chief  object ;  the  words  they  deliver,  and  the 
meaning  and  effect  of  the  words,  being  subordi- 
nated to  the  solution  of  the  problem.  But  no  man 
can  read  well  who  divides-  his  attention  between 
the  book  and  the  people  ;  and  if  he  happens,  as  he 
often  will,  to  "  lose  the  place  "  while  looking  away 
from  the  book,  he  of  course  comes  to  a  full  stop, 
and  breaks  down  altogether. 

One  more  suggestion  as  to  reading.  Never, 
never,  never  allow  the  last  word,  or  the  several  con- 
cluding words  of  a  sentence,  to  be  uttered  in  a 
whisper,  or  in  any  tone  approaching  a  whisper. 
The  universality  of  the  habit  of  dropping  one's 
voice  on  the  last  word  or  words  of  a  sentence,  is 
amazing.  Even  clergymen  of  long  experience,  and 
those  who  are  aware  of  the  frequency  of  the  fault 
in  themselves  and  in  others,  and  who  have  tempo- 
rarily cured  themselves  of  it,  will  still  perpetually 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  217 

relapse  into  it.  Many  men  do  this  unconsciously  ; 
but  the  thing  could  hardly  be  so  common  if  some 
clergymen  did  not  persuade  themselves  that  au 
occasional  whisper  is  very  impressive,  and  if  each 
one  who  uses  it  did  not  flatter  himself  that  his 
whisper  is  audible.  I  may  remark,  however,  that, 
while  a  low  tone  at  the  end  of  a  sentence  is  com- 
mon to  both  readers  and  preachers,  the  actual 
whisper  is  usually  reserved  for  the  sermon.  Nev- 
ertheless, as  a  rule,  no  whisper  is  audible  in  a 
church,  and  therefore  no  man  can  be  justified  in 
using  it. 

The  delivery  of  a  sermon  is  an  exercise,  in 
many  respects,  different  from  reading  the  Bible 
and  Prayer  Book  ;  but,  as  an  elocutionary  exer- 
cise, it  differs  only  by  reason  of  its  additional  re- 
quirements. The  meaning  of  the  language  is  not, 
indeed,  a  necessary  study ;  but  that  is  only  because 
a  writer  must  be  presumed  to  know  his  own  mean- 
ing without  study.  A  knowledge  of  meaning  is  in- 
dispensable in  any  case.  Neither  is  it  necessary  or 
proper  for  a  preacher  to  keep  his  eyes  on  his  manu- 
script ;  on  the  contrary,  he  should  dispense  with 
his  manuscript  so  far  as  he  can  without  injury  to 
a  fluent  utterance  ;  for,  other  things  being  equal, 
every  sentence  of  a  sermon  literally  spoken  has 
twice  the  power  of  the  same  words  read.  But,  in 
every  other  particular,  what  has  already  been  in- 
sisted on  as  essential  to  reading,  is  equally  so  to 
preaching. 

Of  requirements  additional  to  those  for  reading, 


218  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

it  may  be  remarked,  generally,  that  the  most  im- 
portant of  them  appertain  to  the  control,  or  want 
of  control,  of  the  voice ;  the  reason  for  which  is, 
that,  in  sermons,  the  various  subjects  to  be  con- 
sidered, and  the  manner  of  their  treatment,  involve 
more  development  of  personal  interest  and  feeling 
than  are  ordinarily  excited  in  reading  the  Bible  or 
Prayer  Book ;  and  that  the  preacher,  with  all  his 
efforts  to  make  the  printed  service  practically  his 
own,  seldom  attains  that  object  so  completely  as  in 
dealing  with  what  he  has  himself  written,  which  is 
really  his  own.  But — such  is  the  perverseness  of 
human  nature  —  it  often  happens  that  just  in  pro- 
portion as  a  man's  opportunities  for  doing  well 
increase,  his  propensity  to  do  ill,  or  to  overdo,  also 
increases ;  and  hence,  a  clergyman,  in  the  delivery 
of  his  own  words,  will  go  to  extremes  into  which 
his  discreet  enthusiasm  never  betrays  him  when 
delivering  the  words  of  others.  Thus,  while,  con- 
currently with  other  faults,  the  prevailing  charac- 
teristic of  reading  is  monotony,  that  of  preaching 
is  extravagance,  —  and  the  latter  quality  pertains 
chiefly  to  the  management  or  control  of  the  voice. 
It  may  be  said,  to  be  sure,  that  the  whole  art  of 
elocution  consists  of  the  proper  management  and 
control  of  the  voice  ;  and,  in  the  comprehensive 
sense  of  the  words,  that  is  true.  But  there  are 
two  kinds  of  such  management  and  control:  one 
is  co-operative  with  the  mind  of  the  reader  and  the 
meaning  of  his  language,  which  is  the  greater  in- 
cluding the  less ;  the  other  is  a  mere  keeping  of 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  219 

the  voice  in  mechanical  or  physical  subordination 
to  the  higher  rules  and  principles  of  the  art. 

In  this  regard,  then,  let  it  be  understood  that 
a  speaker  should  always  retain  full  command  of 
his  voice.  He  must  not  allow  his  feelings  to 
run  away  with  it.  Whether  ministering  to  the 
afflicted,  or  entreating  the  careless  ;  admonishing 
the  impenitent,  or  denouncing  the  hardened  trans- 
gressor,—  whatever,  indeed,  may  be  the  impulse, 
and  however  deeply  he  may  be  moved  by  it,  he 
must  still  hold  his  voice  under  subjection.  He 
must  not  permit  it  to  be  choked  by  sympathy,  so 
that  pathos  becomes  sobbing ;  nor  overstrained  by 
impetuosity,  until  energy  is  vulgarized  into  vocifer- 
ation. There  is  no  greater  error  in  any  relation 
of  life,  public  or  private,  than  an  attempt  to  give 
force  to  language  by  intemperance,  either  of  tone 
or  gesticulation.  Personal  dignity  disappears  the 
moment  that  violence  shows  itself,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  the  speaker  disappears  with  it;  so  that 
whenever  he  loses  command  of  himself,  he  loses 
control  of  his  audience.  There  is  nothing  in  elo- 
cution so  unexceptionally  vicious,  as  violence  of 
delivery:  it  is  worse,  even,  than  inaudibleness ;  for 
while  the  latter  fatigues  a  congregation,  the  for- 
mer disgusts  them.  Earnestness  is  commendable : 
even  vehemence  is  sometimes  endurable ;  but  vio- 
lence, never.  The  extreme  exercise  of  a  man's 
vocal  power,  which  is  the  equivalent  of  roaring, 
or  screaming,  and  which  is  —  moderately  speak- 
ing—sometimes practised  in  the  pulpit;  is  a  tres- 


220  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

pass  on  good  taste,  on  every  principle  of  elocution, 
and  on  the  sanctity  of  the  place,  which  nothing  can 
excuse  or  palliate.  A  man  who,  in  different  ca- 
pacities, is  serving  his  Maker  and  his  fellow-men, 
and  who,  in  the  name  of  the  One,  is  exhorting  the 
other,  has  no  right  to  disregard  the  proprieties  at- 
taching to  both  relations.  Neither  is  it  wise  to  go 
still  further  and  exaggerate  even  that  extreme  of 
indecorum  into  utter  absurdity,  as  some  men  do, 
when  their  violence  becomes  undiscriminating  : 
they  seem  to  be,  as  it  were,  intoxicated  with  the 
reverberation  of  their  own  voices ;  they  are  agree- 
ably astonished  to  find  that  they  can  make  so 
much  noise ;  and,  by  showering  their  stentorian 
utterances  at  random,  they  give  fearful  prominence 
to  an  and  or  a  but,  as  often  as  to  a  more  important 
word.  And  another  thing  may  be  mentioned. 
When  the  declamatory  afflatus  is  at  its  zenith, 
the  speaker,  finding  that  his  utmost  vocal  efforts 
fall  short  of  his  enthusiasm,  reinforces  the  power 
of  voice  with  the  power  of  gesticulation ;  and  he 
brings  that  part  of  his  performance  to  a  climax 
with  a  violent  slap  of  his  hand,  or  blow  of  his  fist, 
on  his  sermon,  or  on  the  Bible  or  the  cushion  that 
holds  it.  He  thus,  in  Hamlet's  phrase,  "  suits  the 
action  to  the  word,"  because  both  are  tempestu- 
ous: but  he  raises  more  dust  than  sympathy. 

Now,  if  clergymen  did  but  know  it,  or  would 
but  know  it,  every  time  they  indulge  in  this  ex- 
travagance, they  not  only  defeat  their  immediate 
object;  but  they  injure  their  position  with  their 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  221 

audience   by  betraying   a  weakness,  which  they 
would  do  much  better  to  conceal. 

In  conclusion  of  the  requisites  to  the  proper  de- 
livery of  a  sermon,  I  would  say  a  few  words  on 
gesticulation,  —  as  to  which,  the  safest  course  for  a 
novice  is  to  avoid  it  altogether;  at  least  as  a  matter 
of  either  experiment  or  study.     Remember,  as  a 
controlling  fact,  that  there  is  no  need  of  gestures 
at  all.     No  elocutionary  rule  requires  them,  and  if 
there  is  any  rule  about  them,  it  is  a  rule  whose  sole 
office  is  prohibition.     It  enjoins  simply  this,  —  that 
inappropriate  gesture  shall  be  avoided :   and  one 
reason  for  its  going  no  further  is  to  be  found  in 
the  nature  of  the  case :  for  no  precept  could  be  so 
framed  as  to  include  all  the  varieties  of  proper  ac- 
tion in  the  pulpit,  and  to  provide  for  the  still  greater 
variety  of  circumstances  that  would  affect  its  appli- 
cation.    Besides,  what  is  improper  cannot  easily  be 
known  to  the  preacher  himself,  because  he  cannot 
see  himself:  the  congregation  are  the  sole  witnesses 
and  judges  of  that.     But  if  a  clergyman  will  never 
study,  or  premeditate,  or  privately  practise  a  ges- 
ture ;  and,  as  an  invariable  rule,  will  permit  his 
hands  and  arms  to  obey  nothing  but  his  internal 
impulse  at  the  moment,  independently  of  how  the 
thing  may  look,  he  will  never  go  far  wrong. 

A  very  disagreeable  habit,  and  by  no  means  an 
uncommon  one  of  either  young  or  old  clergymen, 
is  a  frequently  repeated  motion  of  the  right  arm, 
always  describing  the  same  circle,  or  semicircle,  or 
angular  or  curved  line,  uniform  in  extent  of  feet 


222  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION. 

and  inches,  and  made  without  the  slightest  refer- 
ence to  the  words  it  accompanies.  The  action  is 
usually  ungraceful,  because  it  is  studied ;  and  it 
has  the  effect  on  a  spectator  that  anything  obvi- 
ously artificial  will  always  have.  There  are  many 
other  gestures  with  one  arm,  or  both,  equally 
stereotyped  and  equally  vicious ;  but  every  ges- 
ture that  is  premeditated,  or  uniform,  should  be 
strenuously  avoided. 

And  —  to  bring  this  matter  of  pulpit  deportment 
to  an  end  —  I  will  add  that  some  clergymen  have 
a  habit  of  looking  in  only  one  direction  while  de- 
livering their  sermons.  The  object  of  their  atten- 
tion—  excepting,  of  course,  the  manuscript  —  is 
the  ceiling,  or  the  floor,  or  the  organ,  or  a  column 
on  the  right  or  left ;  or,  a  part  of  the  congregation 
on  one  side,  or  the  other,  or  in  front ;  but  in  each 
particular  instance,  the  one  object  is  the  only  object 
looked  at.  This  is  a  habit  that  seems  to  indicate 
either  apathy  or  embarrassment  on  the  part  of  a 
preacher.  The  only  proper  course  for  a  clergyman 
in  the  pulpit,  after  giving  the  necessary  attention 
to  his  manuscript,  is  to  direct  his  eyes  easily  and 
occasionally  to  every  part  of  the  congregation,  so 
that  every  person  present  may  have  reason  to  con- 
sider himself  individually  addressed. 

I  would  like  now  to  make  two  suggestions  about 
sermons  themselves,  which  are  not  in  any  way  con- 
nected with  their  delivery. 

The  first  is  not  very  important,  and  it  is  merely 
a  matter  of  taste.  A  great  number,  perhaps  a 


CLERICAL  ELOCUTION.  223 

majority,  of  clergymen  state  where  the  text  is  to 
be  found,  then  read  it,  and  then  repeat  the  an- 
nouncement in  both  particulars.  The  only  effect 
of  this,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  is  to  encourage  an 
old  and  very  bad,  but  now  comparatively  infre- 
quent custom  on  the  part  of  the  congregation,  of 
verifying  the  preacher's  announcement  by  looking 
up  the  text  in  their  Bibles,  gravely  reading  it,  and 
handing  the  book  up  or  down  the  pew  that  others 
may  also  verify  the  announcement.  If  the  preacher 
would  wait  while  all  this  is  in  progress,  there  would 
be  less  impropriety,  though  no  less  superfluity,  in 
the  custom  ;  but  the  preacher  does  not  wait,  and 
therefore  the  only  effect  of  the  custom  is  a  general 
interruption.  But  the  repetition  by  the  preacher  is 
itself  superfluous.  It  is  a  sort  of  assumption  of 
the  importance  of  a  text  as  appertaining  to  a 
sermon  ;  whereas,  the  importance  of  a  text  is  in- 
trinsic, independently  of  the  sermon.  A  preacher 
may,  and  may  not,  make  an  important  use  of  a 
text  in  the  course  of  his  sermon,  but  he  can  give  it 
no  importance  by  announcing  it. 

My  second  suggestion  relates  to  the  theme  of  a 
sermon.  It  is  a  matter  of  common  observation 
that  young  clergymen  almost  always  overshoot 
the  mark  in  their  initiatory  efforts  at  writing  for 
the  pulpit.  They  are  apt  to  attempt  too  much. 
Instead  of  contenting  themselves  with  expounding 
the  plain  precepts  of  the  Gospel,  which  alone  they 
are  called  on  to  consider,  and  which  they  are  per- 
fectly able  to  discuss,  they  are  prone  to  undertake 


224  CLERICAL  ELOCUTION 

some  new  phase  of  a  doctrinal  point ;  or,  to  expa- 
tiate on  some  of  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation ;  or,  to  attempt  fine  writing,  and  to  sprinkle 
their  paragraphs  with  large  words  and  figures  of 
rhetoric ;  or,  to  aim  at  originality,  or  at  some  other 
thing  not  easily  attained  and  not  worth  attaining. 
They  do,  in  short,  just  what  young  men  do  because 
they  are  young  men,  what  a  majority  of  their  pred- 
ecessors have  done,  and  what  they  will  themselves 
cease  to  do,  whenever  they  cease  to  be  young  men. 
And  the  object  of  this  suggestion  is,  to  point  out 
a  common  fault  that  can  readily  be  discerned  and 
identified,  and  which  would  therefore  be  much  bet- 
ter avoided  at  first,  than  be  left  to  the  chances  of 
being  cured,  or  not  cured,  by  experience. 

I  have  now  offered  to  your  consideration  all  that 
my  limited  time  permits  of  elocutionary  principles, 
independently  of  practical  illustrations ;  and  it  all 
comes  to  but  this  at  last,  —  that  a  student  of  elo- 
cution must  be  substantially  his  own  teacher, 


INDEX. 


Abbess ' 

Abuse 

Actor 

Actress 

Addison 

Affectation  . 

Alford,  Den 

Alternative 

Al 

Ambassador 

American  i 

Amour 

Analys; 

Anywheres 

Apprehend  . 

Archceolo; 

Astrology 

At  length 

Attorney,  Attorni 

Audibleness 


Page 

Pagp 

•  meal     . 

65 

Chancellor  . 
Chesterfield 

.      158 

.       164 

.    54 
90 

. 

22 

Coleridge     . 

•  105 
19 

5,  53 

Collate    . 

21 

on  . 

43,  183 

Colton 

184 

)ean,  8,  75,  8 
ive     . 

dor    . 

9,  93,  102,  112 
.     45 
72 
.     22 

Comparative  adjectives  . 
Contrasting  adjectives 
Conchology     . 
Conductress 

.     69 
69 
.  105 
23 

nisin 

89 

Consequence  . 

.     36 

.  159 

Controversialist  . 

12 

of  a  sentem 

e               184  j  Conversationalist,  etc.    . 

.     17 

res      . 
id  . 

.     25    Correspond  . 
86  !  Counsellor 

62 
.  158 

>gy  • 

.  105  i  Countess      . 

22 

<f     . 

.       105 

Couple    .... 

32,  150 

i 

A  *4.  :,.„ 

.     50 

Curious 

51,  158 

Au  fait         ....      103 
Author,  Authoress  .        .        .21 

Baroness      ....        22 
Beekman,  James  W.      .        .  137 
Benefactor,  Benefactress     .        22 
Beside,  Besides       ...    28 
Blackwood's  Magazine        .        24 
Blair        5 
Book  Genesis,  The      .        .        57 
Bourn      96 
Brace  .        .        .        -        -        33 

Dean's  English,  The    .        .      135 
Debase    .        .        .        .       24,  34 
Debasement         ...        35 
Deceiving        .        .        .        .104 
Defence,  Defense         .        .      148 
Delivery  of  a  Sermon     .        .  217 
Demean      .        .        .        .24,  34 
Demeanour     .        .        .        .34 
Democratic  Review,  The    .      139 
Deride     34 
Deportment  of  a  clergyman      212 
De  trop        .        .                .103 
Device,  Devise       .                .  164 
Dickens       .        .        .24,  46,  95 
Directly  ...                 .107 
Directress    ....        23 
Discriminate   .        .        .        .50 
Distil                                      -       1SS 

Build 
Buhver 
Burke      . 
Business 
But  that 
Byron 

Case,  Casket,  Coffin 
Casuality    . 

.  161 
63 
.     54 
.       110 
.    59 
.  72,  79 

.     85 
19 
.  161 

Distinguish     . 
Doddridge    . 
Donate    . 
Donkey,  Donkies 

.    50 
36 
.     20 
94 

226 


INDEX, 


Drive 84  I  I  never  mean  to  . 


Dropping  the  voice     . 
Drvden 

216 
5 

gnorance        .        . 

.  184 

188 

Dulness       .... 

157 

mportance      . 

.    36 

n  our  midst 

65 

Earnestness     .... 

219 

n  so  fur 

.     61 

PftBV 

11" 

n  that 

60 

Economist       .... 

15 

nfinitive  Mood 

.    72 

Edinburgh  Keview     .          16, 

117 

nspectress  . 

23 

Either      

40 

nstal 

.  156 

212 

nstil 

158 

Emphasis        .... 

111!' 

nvite 

.     68 

Emphasis  overdone     . 

211 

rving,  Washington     . 

54,  156 

Enamour     .... 

151) 

Enrol       

15H 

Jenkins  and  Jones       . 

78 

Enthral        .... 

15li 

.      72,  90 

Epithet    .                         . 

48 

184 

Jeopardize  . 
John  Halifax 

11 

.     17 

Everett    ....       21 

,  55 

Johnson     6,  20,  35,  36, 

53,  72,  143 

Exceptionable     . 
Excuse    ..... 

87 

Journal 

82 
,  „    .  v  4 

Exhibit        

OS 

Justified      . 

75 

Experimentalize     ... 

17 

Kean,  Edmund 

.  185 

Famous       .... 

100 

Few,  a         .... 

89 

Latham   . 

.      5 

Figure     

Lazy    .... 

.       110 

First,  the     .... 

108 

Leniency 

.     15 

Firstly     . 

24 
99 
99 

Lexicographer,  A 
London  Times,  The 
London  Athenaeum 

.       143 
.     77,  120 
51 

From  hence,  thence,  whence 
From  out     . 

Fulfil       .... 

157 

157 

London  Morning  Chronicle     .  120 
Logy,  the  termination          .       105 

Fulne'ss        . 

Furious  .        .        .    * 

100 

Looked  beautifully 

.     49 

Lustre 

.       161 

Garrick       .        .        .       192, 

193 

Lyttleton         .        . 

.     54 

General  Grant         .        .       21 

,  (53 

Genesis,  The  Book      . 

57 

Macaulay    .        .        . 

5,  12,  120 

Geology  

105 
221 

Macready 
Macbeth      . 

.   185,  194 
.  37,  92 

Gesticulation 

Gibbon    ....         5 

.79 

Maintain 

.     75 

Goldsmith   .... 

54 

Make  no  more  noise  the 

in  vou 

Governor         . 
Good  writers       .        .       141, 
Graduated       .... 

22 
102 

can  help 
Manageress     . 
Many  a         ... 

88 
.     23 
89 

Guide,  Guard,  Guilt   . 

161 

Marchioness    . 

.     22 

Hamlet   . 

92 

Marsh,  George  P.        18 
Materialistic 

,  70,  71,  80 
18 

Hardy          .... 

lli) 

Matinee  . 

.  103 

Holmes,  Oliver  Wendell 
Honour        .... 
Hostilize 

14" 
15!) 
86 

Mechanical  style 
Meteorology    .        . 
Milton 

.       193 
.  105 
.  25,  53 

Humble       .... 
Hunter    . 

111 

22 

Mineralogy      .        . 
Misacorehend 

.  105 
68 

INDEX. 


227 


Misconceive    . 

Misjudge 
Misunderstand 
Mistaken      .        . 
Money,  Monies 
Monkey,  Monkies 
Moon,  G.  Washington 
Most    . 
Mould,  Moult 
Mutual 
Mutual  friend 

Nation,  The 
Neither    . 

.    6S 
68 
.     08 
66 
.     93 
94 
.     80,  135 
52 
.  164 
111 
.     46 

18,  70,  80 

Prescott 
Pretence,  Pretense 
Preventative   . 
Priest,  Priestess 
Princess 
Profit  . 
Proffer    .        .        .    '   . 
Progress       .        .        . 

.    54 

.      148 
.     19 
22 
.    22 
.       150 
.  150 
89 

Prophet                ...        22 
Prophecy,  Prophesy       .        .  164 

Reading  the  Lessons  .        .      216 
1  Rebel       93 
Recommend         ...        68 
Reformer,  A    .                .        .143 
Repetition  of  texts      .        .      223 
Reverend,  The        .        .        .    56 
Resurrected          ...        86 
Richelieu         ....    63 
Hide     84 
Rising  inflection     .        .  206,  209 
Rotatorv      .        .        .        .        19 
Round  Table,  The  .        .    80,  167 

School  Readers   .        .        .      174 
Scott,  Walter          .        .        .147 
Secretaryess        .                 .        23 
Sentences        .        .        .        .108 
Sepulchre    ....      161 
Separatist        .        .        .        .15 
Serious         ....      160 
Should  have  regretted  his  hav- 
ing been   .        .        .        .73 
Singeress     ....        23 

Never  .... 
Newspapers    . 
New  York  Evening  Post 
Ninth  Commandment 
Nowheres 

Of  all  others 
Offence,  Offense     . 
Officeress     . 
One 

88 

21,28/139 
.       204 
.     25 

64 
.  148 
23 

One  half      . 
Onlv 

87 

Opened  up  . 
Orate 
Ornithology 
Osteology 
Our  mutual  friend 
Ovate 

98 
.     21 
.       105 
.  105 
46 
.     21 

Over  his  signature 
Overtake 

47 
.     68 

Paley 
Paragraph  Bible 
Paraphernalia         . 
Patron,  Patroness 
Pause,  for  emphasis 
Peculiar 

.     14 
.       195 
.     44 
22 
.  205 
52 

Smollett 
somewheres    .        .        . 
Southey 

54 
.     25 
.  59,  72 

South,  Dr.       ... 
Span    .... 
Stand-point     . 

.     25 
33 
.     25 
26 
.     63 
23 
.  150 
98 

.    23 
60 
.  161 
223 
.  105 
85 
.    65 

Permit 
Perpetual 
niilology     . 
Phrenology      .        . 
Physiology 

68 
.  Ill 
.       105 
.  105 
.       105 
86 

Stopping 
Superintendentess       . 
Supple     .... 
Sweat  of  his  brow 

Talkeress 
That    .... 
Theatre  .... 
Theme  of  a  Sermon    . 
Theology 
To  the  muzzle     . 
I'onv  Butler    . 
1'oward       .... 

Plead 

102 

Plough    . 
Poet,  Poetess 
Possessive  Case,  The      . 
Practice,  Practise 
Predicate 
Predict 

.  160 
22 
.     74 
.       163 

.     38 
86 

228 


INDEX. 


Treasureress  . 
Trench     41,  59,  60,  61,  72,  74, 
Trollope,  Anthony 

23 
108 
65 

101 

Was,  for  is,  etc.  . 
Wearv     .... 
Webster,  Daniel 
Webster,  Noah  14,  20,  30,  39, 

101 
.  110 
65 

66,95 

Underhanded 
Underminded         > 
Universe      .... 
Usage  of  good  writers     . 
Usual 

19 

20 
88 
8 

111 

Webster's  Dictionary 
Wharf,  wharfs,  wharves     . 
Whispers 
White,  Richard  Grant 
Whose     .... 

14,71 
106 
.  217 
.  21 
.    79 

Variety  of  tones     . 

196 

Widow  lady 
Widow  woman 
Wife 

68 
.    68 
30 

Wilson             . 

72 

View-point          .        .        . 

27 

Without       . 

63 
.    31 

Voice  injured  by  monotony 

Waitress      .... 
Walker    

I'M 

23 
151 
28 

Worcester   .        . 
Worcester's  Dictionary  . 
Writeress     .... 

Yoke       .... 

16,48 
.  166 
23 

.    83 

WalDole          .... 

ui 

You  are  mistaken       .       . 

66 

THE   END. 


Widdletoris  Editions  of  Choice  Standard  Works 


REVISED    EDITION 


Trench  on  the  Study  of  Words. 

T  ECTURES  ADDRESSED  (ORIGINAL- 
•L-/  LY)  TO  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  DIOCESAN 
TRAINING-SCHOOL,  WINCHESTER.  By  RICHARD 
CHENEVIX  TRENCH,  D.D.  The  Thirtieth  American  from 
the  last  English  Edition,  enlarged  and  revised  by  the  Au- 
thor. I2mo,  cloth,  248  pp.,  $  1.25. 


11  Language  is  the  armory  of  the  human  mind,  and  at  once  cou&ms  the  tro- 
phies of  its  past,  and  the  weapons  of  its  future  conquests." 

"This  is  one  of  the  most  instructive,  as  well  as  interesting  books,  and  we  par- 
ticularly recommend  it  to  those  who  are  under  the  impressiou  that  the  study  of 
mere  words  must  necessarily  be  uninteresting.  Professor  Trench  has  mad* 
«vhat  has  heretofore  been  considered  a  dry  and  repulsive  study  interesthijr  to 
•11  'ntelligent  persons,  even  though  they  may  be  ignorant  of  any  but  the  Eng- 
IUL  tongue." 


For  sale  at  the  principal   Bookstores  throughout  the  countiy 
and  mailed  by  Publisher  on  receipt  of  price. 

W.  J.  WIDDLETON,  PUBLISHER, 

New  York. 


THE 

STUDENT'S    MYTHOLOGY; 

A  COMPENDIUM  OF 

Greek,  Roman,  Egyptian,  Assyrian,  Persian,  Hin- 
doo, Chinese,  Thibetan,  Scandinavian,  Celtic^ 
Aztec,  and  Peruvian  Mythologies,  in  accordance 
'with  Standard  Authorities. 

Arranged  for  the  use  of  Schools  and  Academies  by  C.  A.  WHITE. 

(PREPARED  BY  REQUEST  FOR  THE  SCHOOLS  OF  THE  S.  H., 
AND  REVISED  AT  GEORGETOWN  COLLEGE.) 

A  handsome  ilmo  volume,  315  //.,  cloth,  $1.25. 


THE  STUDENT'S  MYTHOLOGY  is  a  practical  work,  pre- 
pared by  an  experienced  teacher,  and  submitted  to  the 
decisive  test  of  the  School-room,  having  been  in  use  in 
"  manuscript"  for  three  years,  and  meeting  with  great  favor 
from  teachers  and  pupils,  —  preferring  it,  even  in  that  incon- 
venient form,  to  other  text-books  on  the  subject. 

Copies  were  eagerly  sought  by  other  institutions,  and 
»he  Compiler  consented  to  its  publication. 

GEORGKTOWN  COLLEGE,  GEORGETOWN,  DC. 

"  THE  STUDENT'S  MYTHOLOGY  is  a  work  every  way  fitting  to  be  placed  ic 
the  hands  of  the  class  for  whom  it  was  prepared,  and  indeed  will  be  read  with 
pleasure  by  any  one.  In  its  pages  nothing  will  be  found  of  a  nature  to  offend 
delicacy  ;  while  its  limpid  style,  and  its  numerous  poetical  and  historical  illustra- 
tions, cannot  but  attract  the  student,  improve  the  taste,  and  inform  the  mind.  It 
it  learned  without  being  heavy,  and  comprehensive  without  being  lengthy." 

JNO.   S.   SUMNER,  S.  J. 

For  sale  at  principal  Bookstores  throughout  the  country, 
and  mailed  by  Publisher  on  receipt  of  price. 

W.  J.  WIDDLETON,  PUBLISHER, 

New  York. 


Widdlctotfs  Editions  of  Choice  Standard  Work* 

Disraeli's   Complete   Works 

THE   AUTHORIZED   AND    COMPLETE   EDITION, 

Edited,  with  Notes,  by  his  Son,  the  Right  Hon.  B.  DISRAELI 
Ex-Premier  of  England.  In  9  vols.  crown  Svo.  Large  cleai 
type,  on  fine  toned  paper,  bound  in  handsome  library  style  in 
extra  cloth,  comprising:  — 

THE  CURIOSITIES  OF  Lr  "ERATURE.  4  vols.  .  $7.00 
THE  AMENITIES  OF  LITERATURE.  2  vols.  .  3  50 

THE  CALAMITIES  AND  QUARRELS  OF  AUTHORS. 

2  vols 3  50 

THE  LITERARY  CHARACTER,     i  vol.      .    .    .    2.25 


Any  of  the  works  sold  separately  as  above,  or  the  entire 
set  of  nine  volumes  in  a  case  for  $15.00;  half  calf,  $30.00. 

This  set  of  books  contains  what  may  be  called  the  cream 
of  reading  and  research,  from  the  time  of  Dr.  Johnson  to 
our  own,  and  of  the  superiority  of  this  edition  there  is  no 
room  for  question ;  a  comparison  with  the  English,  — 
crowded  into  six  volumes  of  small  type,  —  decides  at  a 
glance. 


For  sale  at  tne    principal    Bookstores  throughout    the 
countrj,  and  sent  by  mail  or  express,  on  receipt  of  price  bv 

W.   J.    WIDDLETON,    PUBLISHER,     . 

37  Howard  Street,  New  Totk 


Wtddlcton's  Editions  of  L/ioice  Standard  Work* 


Charles  Lamb's   Jf^orks. 

The  complete  works  of  "  The  Gentle  Elia,"  corrected  and 
revised,  with  a  sketch  of  his  life,  by  THOMAS  NOON  TALFORD, 
and  a  fine  steel  portrait. 

This  is  the  most  complete,  and  a  very  elegant  edition  of 
LAMB.  Printed  in  large  clear  type,  on  choice  tinted  paper. 
5  vols.  crown  8vo.,  cloth,  cut  or  uncut  edges,  $9.00;  half 
calf  or  half  Turkey  morocco,  $18.  Each  set  of  books  in  a  box. 

T AMD'S  ESSAYS  OF  ELIA.  A  new  edition. 
"^^  on  tinted  paper.  In  i  vol.  crown  8vo,  cloth,  cut  or  un- 
cut edges,  $1.75;  half  calf,  or  half  Turkey  morocco,  $3.50. 

T  AMD'S   ELIANA.     Containing  the  hitherto  un- 
collected  Writings  of  CHARLES  LAMB.     In  i  vol.  crown 
8vo,  cloth,  cut  or  uncut  edges,  $1.75;  half  calf  or  half  Turkey 
morocco,  $3.50. 

"This  gentle  Lamb— Heaven  be  praised  for  ordaining  him  the  fittest,  as  it 
a  the  sweetest,  of  names  1  —  was  one  whose  daily  life  grew  more  beautiful  as  one 
came  nearer  to  it  and  measured  it  more  carei'ully. 

"  The  world  will  be  much  older  than  it  is  yet,  before  an  intelligent  man  ot 
woman  can  be  pardoned  for  asking,  "Who  was  Charles  Lamb?"  And  yet, 
because  we  know  him  so  well,  we  are  the  more  willing  to  know  him  better :  we 
cannot  learn  so  much  as  to  be  content  not  to  know  more.  There  is  ne  healthiei 
«ign  of  a  sound  literary  taste  than  this  tender  attachment  for  such  a  writer  ai 
Lamb.  These  dainty,  exquisite  pages  —  of  which  nothing  too  good  can  be  said, 
tiid  for  which  book-lovers  cannot  too  heartily  thank  the  conscientious  publisher— 
breathe  a  sweetness,  a  fragrance,  as  fine  as  the  breezes  of  May,  and  as  good  (ot  the 
appetent  soul."  —  Chicago  Evening  Journal. 


For  sale  at  principal  Bookstores  throughout  the  country, 
»x«d  mailed  by  Publisher  on  receipt  of  price. 

W.  J.  WIDDLETON,  PUBLISHER, 
New 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


\5>' 


